Drawing of Booth Body

[mikegriffith1]

(11-03-2018 09:41 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 09:26 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  why no one who knew Booth well was asked to ID his body on the Montauk

Charles Dawson saw Booth many times in the recent past.

"Many times"? I don't know about that. That seems unlikely. Booth was gone quite often in the months leading up to the assassination. Dawson stated in his testimony to Holt on the Montauk that he was no more acquainted with Booth than he was with any other guest at the hotel: "merely as intimate as I would be with any guest at the hotel."

Unless Dawson worked seven days a week and 12-14 hours a day, it is unlikely that he would have seen Booth more than a few times in the months leading up to the assassination, and those sightings would have been brief.

There is a big difference between knowing someone for years as a friend and seeing them a few times from behind a hotel reception desk among hundreds of other guests who came to the hotel.

And then there are the inherent problems with Dawson's testimony about his identification.

For starters, Dawson claimed that he "distinctly" recognized the body as Booth from its "general appearance." Was he talking about the same body that Dr. May said bore no resemblance to Booth and that he could not believe was Booth? Was he talking about the same body that L. Gardner said "shocked" everyone by its lack of resemblance to Booth?

Additionally, Dawson said he recognized the vest on the body as Booth's! So after seeing Booth occasionally, sporadically at the hotel, he remembered this one vest as opposed to the hundreds of others he would have seen at the hotel?! Really?! This is not to mention the evidence that the man in the barn was wearing gray clothing.

Dawson further claimed that he saw the initials "JWB" on the body's left "wrist." Leaving aside the conflicts about the location of the initials, if Dawson he had seen the initials on that body, surely he would have said something to those around him. Yet, not a single other person who testified that day mentioned seeing any initials or hearing about any initials, nor did either of the autopsy doctors mention the initials in their reports. Indeed, Holt seemed unaware of the initials until Dawson mentioned them in his testimony that day.

But Dawson wasn't done yet. Unlike all the other non-medical witnesses, Dawson also claimed he saw the scar on the back of the neck. That's odd. Dr. May didn't see the neck scar when he first viewed the body; he didn't see it until Dr. Barnes showed it to him.

To some people, it seems rather obvious that Dawson was a false witness, that he was saying what he knew Holt, Baker, and Bingham wanted to hear. He was not about to incur the wrath of Baker, whose reputation as a lawless thug was well known, by saying the body did not look like Booth. So he not only falsely said the body's "general appearance" looked like Booth, but he padded his story with the unlikely details of the vest, the scar, and the initials.

[RJNorton]

(11-11-2018 12:00 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  There is a big difference between knowing someone for years as a friend and seeing them a few times from behind a hotel reception desk among hundreds of other guests who came to the hotel.

He knew Booth well enough to recognize his handwriting. I feel Dawson stood a few feet from Booth as he checked in. IMO, Dawson was definitely familiar with Booth.

[Gene C]

(11-11-2018 12:00 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  To some people, it seems rather obvious that Dawson was a false witness, that he was saying what he knew Holt, Baker, and Bingham wanted to hear. He was not about to incur the wrath of Baker, whose reputation as a lawless thug was well known, by saying the body did not look like Booth. So he not only falsely said the body's "general appearance" looked like Booth, but he padded his story with the unlikely details of the vest, the scar, and the initials.

It seems your difficulties with Dawson's testimony is he didn't say anything you wanted to hear.
Maybe he liked Booth's vest and wouldn't mind having one too. Or didn't like it and thought it was to attention getting for his taste. Either way, he remembered it
In cutting Booth's hair, it is very conceivable he noticed the scar on his neck.
The initials on his wrist/hand, well some saw them and some didn't.
In my opinion, your criticism of Dawson's testimony is "about as thin as soup made from the shadow of a pigeon that starved to death".

[Gene C]

(11-09-2018 07:40 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Am quite busy this weekend, but will try to read the chapters in Dark Union you mentioned and respond to your comment.

It is a bit overcast outside, and I fell asleep after reading 4 pages of the 4 chapters I am trying to read. Before nodding off, in these four pages, Ray Neff tells us on page 159, ..."his (David Herold) companion in and out of Washington the day Lincoln was shot happened to be a neighboring blacksmith's son named Johnny Booth"
and Sunday morning following the assassination, "Without fanfare the National Detective Police brought Herold into Washington, drunk and manacled.....Herold was photographed at NPD headquarters and hustled back out of town into the Maryland countryside"

On page 160 we find Confederate secret agent James W Boyd is called out and joins the little group consisting of David Herold and NDP. Early on Wednesday morning, when the detectives appear to be asleep, Boyd "collected one of the detectives carbines and three pistols, then stole away, with David Herold at his side"
Ray Neff's source for Boyd joining the group and his and David's escape is not documented.
More to come...
Have read chapters 19-22. It is mainly a large amount of unlikely coincidences, wound together to make a highly speculative story.
I need to read through this again to be able to share specific examples. There are so many of them.

[mikegriffith1]

(11-11-2018 12:00 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 09:41 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 09:26 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  why no one who knew Booth well was asked to ID his body on the Montauk

Charles Dawson saw Booth many times in the recent past.

"Many times"? I don't know about that. That seems unlikely. Booth was gone quite often in the months leading up to the assassination. Dawson stated in his testimony to Holt on the Montauk that he was no more acquainted with Booth than he was with any other guest at the hotel: "merely as intimate as I would be with any guest at the hotel."

Unless Dawson worked seven days a week and 12-14 hours a day, it is unlikely that he would have seen Booth more than a few times in the months leading up to the assassination, and those sightings would have been brief.

There is a big difference between knowing someone for years as a friend and seeing them a few times from behind a hotel reception desk among hundreds of other guests who came to the hotel.

And then there are the inherent problems with Dawson's testimony about his identification.

For starters, Dawson claimed that he "distinctly" recognized the body as Booth from its "general appearance." Was he talking about the same body that Dr. May said bore no resemblance to Booth and that he could not believe was Booth? Was he talking about the same body that L. Gardner said "shocked" everyone by its lack of resemblance to Booth?

Additionally, Dawson said he recognized the vest on the body as Booth's! So after seeing Booth occasionally, sporadically at the hotel, he remembered this one vest as opposed to the hundreds of others he would have seen at the hotel?! Really?! This is not to mention the evidence that the man in the barn was wearing gray clothing.

Dawson further claimed that he saw the initials "JWB" on the body's left "wrist." Leaving aside the conflicts about the location of the initials, if Dawson he had seen the initials on that body, surely he would have said something to those around him. Yet, not a single other person who testified that day mentioned seeing any initials or hearing about any initials, nor did either of the autopsy doctors mention the initials in their reports. Indeed, Holt seemed unaware of the initials until Dawson mentioned them in his testimony that day.

But Dawson wasn't done yet. Unlike all the other non-medical witnesses, Dawson also claimed he saw the scar on the back of the neck. That's odd. Dr. May didn't see the neck scar when he first viewed the body; he didn't see it until Dr. Barnes showed it to him.

To some people, it seems rather obvious that Dawson was a false witness, that he was saying what he knew Holt, Baker, and Bingham wanted to hear. He was not about to incur the wrath of Baker, whose reputation as a lawless thug was well known, by saying the body did not look like Booth. So he not only falsely said the body's "general appearance" looked like Booth, but he padded his story with the unlikely details of the vest, the scar, and the initials.

Three other questions come to mind about Dawson's testimony:

One, why didn't Dawson mention that the body's face was heavily freckled? This would not have been part of Booth's "general appearance."

Two, why didn't Dawson mention any of the scars on the rest of Booth's body, such as the scar on the right arm, the scar on his eyebrow, and the scar near his hairline on the side of his face? H. C. Young noticed those scars and realized they were important for identification. How did Dawson fail to mention a single one of them? For that matter, why did all of the other ID witnesses fail to mention a single one of them?

Three, why did Seaton Munroe say that Dawson told Holt that the JWB initials were between the thumb and the forefinger, which is also where H. C. Young said the initials were located and where McPhail said there was a tattoo? The space near the thumb and the forefinger is nowhere near the "wrist."

[Gene C]

Dawson identified the remains and mentioned a few physical characteristics. There was no need for him to mention all those details you seem to think he overlooked for his identification.

[RJNorton]

IMO, Gene is correct. Dawson answered what was asked of him, and made a positive identification. He wasn't asked about how many scars or freckles the dead body had. To me it's a short, straightforward examination of a man who had seen John Wilkes Booth two weeks beforehand. During the John Surratt trial Dawson was asked if he knew Booth well. Dawson replied, "I saw him a great number of times in the course of two years."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Holt: What is your name and what your occupation?

Dawson: My name is Charles Dawson. I am clerk in the National Hotel Washington, and have charge of the office of that establishment.

Holt: Will you state if you are acquainted with J. Wilkes Booth and how intimately?

Dawson: I have been acquainted with him since October, 1863 - merely as intimately as I would be with any guest in the hotel.

Holt: Have you just examined the dead body, which is claimed to be that of J. Wilkes Booth, on board of this vessel?

Dawson: I have.

Holt: Will you state whether or not in your judgment it is the body of J. Wilkes Booth?

Dawson: I distinctly recognize it as the body of J. Wilkes Booth - first, from the India-ink letters: J. W. B. on the wrist, which I have very frequently noticed, and then by a scar on the neck. I also recognize the vest as that of J. Wilkes Booth.

Holt: On which hand or wrist are the India-ink initials referred to?

Dawson: On the left.

[mikegriffith1]

(11-12-2018 09:33 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  IMO, Gene is correct. Dawson answered what was asked of him, and made a positive identification. He wasn't asked about how many scars or freckles the dead body had. To me it's a short, straightforward examination of a man who had seen John Wilkes Booth two weeks beforehand. During the John Surratt trial Dawson was asked if he knew Booth well. Dawson replied, "I saw him a great number of times in the course of two years."

I just don't understand that response given the issues I presented. That response ignores virtually every problem I pointed out. I would just repeat the problems and questions raised by Dawson's testimony:

* How did Dawson see the neck scar when Dr. May did not notice that scar when he first viewed the body? Dr. May only saw the scar after he asked Dr. Barnes about it and after Barnes showed it to him. So how would Dawson have seen it? How?

* How could Dawson have recognized the body as Booth from its "general appearance" when L. Gardner said everyone was "shocked" at the body's lack of resemblance to Booth, when Dr. May said the body's lineaments bore no resemblance to Booth's, when Dr. May said the body bore no resemblance to Booth, and when Dr. May said that never before had he seen a body undergo such a drastic change in appearance from how it looked in life?

Dr. May saw no "general" resemblance, nor even facial resemblance, and only went along with the Booth identification after he was shown the neck scar.

* How could anyone look at a person's body, a body with a face that was "very much freckled," and say they recognized the body as John Doe from its "general appearance," when John Doe had no freckles? Wouldn't a credible witness make note of this marked difference in appearance? You usually recognize a person by their face--not some common scar on the neck, or their hair color, or their vest, but from their face.

No, Dawson wasn't asked about freckles. He wasn't asked about initials or scars or clothing either, but he mentioned those items. He was asked how he identified the body as Booth. He mentioned the initials, the neck scar, and even the vest. So why did he not mention the scars on the face and arms and the freckles on the face? Answer: Because the body he viewed did not have those scars. You can't just take a witness's word when his testimony is so problematic.

* If Dawson saw JWB initials on the body, why oh why or why did no one else who saw the body--and who was interviewed on the Montauk that day--say anything about them? I keep asking this question, but so far have not seen a response.

I don't care about Montauk witnesses who claimed decades later that they saw the initials--yeah, saw them on the arm, or on the wrist, or the hand (take your pick). Except for Dawson, not a single witness who gave a statement that day, or wrote a report very soon thereafter, said a word about seeing any initials, not even the autopsy doctors, and not even Dr. May.

Surely we can all gather up enough objectivity to admit that if you had been a witness on that boat and you had noticed the initials "JWB" on the body, you would have said something right then and there to the other people viewing the body. Anyone's natural reaction would have been to say, "Hey, look at this. There are the initials 'JWB' on the wrist. Right here." That was crucial, crucial information, much more important than "a big ugly scare" on the back of the neck, which thousands of soldiers likely had.

* So are we to believe that the initials were in fact on the left wrist? I think H. C. Young's statement about the initials, given before anyone knew what they were supposed to say, is much more credible than Dawson's statement, especially given Seaton Munroe's account of what he heard Dawson tell Holt.

* Just because Dawson said that he saw Booth "many times" does not mean that he did, nor does it mean that he would have been in a position to identify the body as Booth. Dawson was a clerk at a popular, major hotel in DC, a hotel where many famous people stayed from time to time. He undoubtedly saw many famous people "many times," and he admitted that he was no more acquainted with Booth than he was with any other guest.

* It strains credulity that Dawson would have recognized the vest as a vest that Booth wore. That's just not credible.

Even a halfway competent lawyer would have followed up with a question like, "Oh, you recognized the vest as Booth's?! How? What features of the vest made it distinguishable and recognizable from other vests?" Saying you recognized the body's vest as John Doe's vest is like saying you recognized a body as John Doe partly on the basis of the suit coat that the body was wearing. Even a recent law school graduate would have been quick to ask how you could be sure that the coat was John Doe's coat. But of course Holt just sat there and accepted Dawson's reply at face value.

* Surely it occurred to Holt, Barnes, Baker, and Bingham that Col. Cobb would be a much more credible witness than any of the other witnesses they had on the boat, since Cobb had known Booth for many years and had seen him less than two weeks earlier.

Read with an ounce of critical thinking, Dawson's claims raise many questions for which there are no good answers. If this had been a trial about the identity of the body on the Montauk, Dawson would have been destroyed on cross-examination.

[L Verge]

Griffith: "Three, why did Seaton Munroe say that Dawson told Holt that the JWB initials were between the thumb and the forefinger, which is also where H. C. Young said the initials were located and where McPhail said there was a tattoo? The space near the thumb and the forefinger is nowhere near the 'wrist.'"

I would beg to differ. Booth had small hands (almost dainty) - even smaller when he marked his left hand with his initials as a child. And, he would have marked them on the solid portion of the hand, not the webbing between the thumb and forefinger. I'm typing this while comparing things with my small left hand, and a similar marking on my hand would come within two inches of my wrist.

Booth was right-handed, which meant that, when signing the hotel register or writing notes or whatever, he would be using his left hand in plain view to hold down the paper or book on which he wrote. There's not a one of us who doesn't do this when writing on a surface that can cause the paper to slip. Charles Dawson would have seen that left hand numerous times when on duty at the desk. Also, the National Hotel was Booth's home when he was in D.C. (and also home to many Southern sympathizers), There should be no doubt that he was able to identify both the tattoo and the body, if he had been asked to do so. I suspect that Dawson may have been invited by Booth to go drinking upon occasion.

We are also ignoring a second person who identified the tattoo on the corpse. Charles Collins was a signal officer and clerk to the captain of the Montauk and had known Booth by sight for several years and personally for about six weeks. He also told Judge Holt that he had seen Booth in the office at the National Hotel just about four hours before the assassination and that the actor had greeted him. Collins's statement is in NARA M599, 4:350-352.

[RJNorton]

(11-12-2018 10:42 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Dawson was a clerk at a popular, major hotel in DC, a hotel where many famous people stayed from time to time. He undoubtedly saw many famous people "many times,"

And what percentage of these people had the initials J.W.B. on either their right or left hands?

[Gene C]

It seems odd that of all the witnesses that identified the body as Booth, even when they noticed some changes in it's appearance from the living Booth, none of them denied that it was Booth.

Mike, you are having us believe that the government brings forth a fake body to be identified as Booth, when according to you it doesn't even look like him?
"It strains credulity"

You also make all these comments regarding scars and tatoos not being mentioned by certain witnesses and then say "You usually recognize a person by their face--not some common scar on the neck, or their hair color, or their vest, but from their face. "

I'll borrow from something you said previously. I just don't understand that response given the issues I presented.

[Jim Garrett]

Just another short comment on identification. I watched a show the other night about Kelsey Grammer. His teenage sister was brutally raped and murdered. Her roommate could not provide a positive identification because of the change in her appearnce. This apparently was due to dehydration.

[Gene C]

Getting back to my comments about the book Dark Union in post #49

I forgot to mention that in Chapter 19, Neff tells us about the difficulty with those at Seward's house who give conflicting descriptions and change their testimony in describing the physical appearance and description of Lewis Paine (Payne) According to Neff, some describe his appearance as remarkably similar to Augustus Seward and hints that there may have been two assassins and Augustus may actually be the one who attacked his father, and that Augustus may have had some mental problems.

Ray Neff would also have us believe that in Booth's escape after shooting Lincoln, he connects up not with David Herold but Edwin Hynson. Hynson is supposed to bear a resemblance to Herold and rents a horse from the same stable and on the same day as Herold.
Unfortunately Neff's last reference to Hynson that I could find is in chapter 21, page 174 at Port Royal. I never could find out what happens to Hynson. Here Neff switches topics and we find an Indian scout named Whippet Nalgai working with the NDP. He finds Booth's diary and several other items belonging to Booth including six pictures of women and $2100 in Union currency. All of which is taken to Washington and turned over to the war department and Stanton.
That is a few days before the capture of Booth/Boyd at Garrett's barn.

In chapter 22 we are informed that William Boyd has reinjured his leg and is now somewhat lame and with some help has turned up at Garrett's farm. Boyd is killed, very little detail here of the event. Neff goes into some detail about Boyd's body and personal effects being brought back to Washington. Neff informs us 13 people were permitted to view the body and "they identified it as Booth's body, chiefly from it's 'general appearance" (page 179-180) Neff goes into some discussion regarding this questionable identification.

There is more in these chapters, but is overly filled with unbelievable comments, as is the entire book. That's part of the problem. There is too much, to many incidences that Neff gives us that just contradict the historical record. A few and it might possibly be believable, but Neff recounts to many examples of deception, fraud, lying, and misinformation throughout this entire time. It is simply unbelievable that all these events were all swept under the rug or suppressed by the government and remained that way for over 100 years. The entire book is like that. Confused by all of this? Neff's book is confusing. And I have not even mentioned Neff's primary source of information is the Potter Papers. The Potter Papers are typed transcripts of diary, letters and other documents, with no originals documents pertaining to these claims. The evidence for an Andrew Potter who worked for the National Detective Police is at best very weak. Part of the Ray Neff papers are on line, I have read many of them. The entire collection of documents and other references Ray Neff gives have been examined by people on this forum and other historians. The general conclusion is the documents are not credible.

The Ray Neff Collection has been mentioned before. Here is the web link to some of those papers. I found the last item on the list, "Diary of John Henry Stevenson alias of Michael O'Laughlin an interesting example of the items in the online collection. http://library.indstate.edu/rbsc/neff/neff-idx.html

Conclusion - Referring to Ray Neff's book Dark Union is not a satisfactory reference to prove your point regarding Booth's escape and the miss-identification of Booth's body.

For anyone who has personally examined the Ray Neff papers, I would appreciate your comments and clarification if I have mistakenly misrepresented or misunderstood something.

[RJNorton]

Gene, thanks for sharing your thoughts on Dark Union.