** NEW DISCOVERY REGARDING BOOTH AUTOPSY PHOTO

[John E.]

(05-30-2013 12:29 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  Just to cross some t's and dot some i's, John, is there period evidence of Lawrence Gardner on the monitors? Is there support for his claim of being there beyond his 1891 statement?

No, unfortunately not at this time. However, there are quite a few things in Lawrence's account that ring true and support our other research. Namely, he mentions having to be ferried to the Monitor and that he and his father had gone to the Navy Yard at least 2 or three times previous to take photos of the conspirators..

Up until this time, many folks thought Gardner only took photos on April 27.

---

(05-30-2013 01:07 PM)wsanto Wrote:  Although I am inclined to believe there is no photograph based on this new evidence, there is still some room to challenge it.

First- There is a contradiction. Why was Lawrence Gardiner sure that Rev. Anderson was not Booth when, as an aside, he admits that no photogragh was taken abourd the Montouk because the deceased did not resemble known photograghs of Booth enough to warrant such documentation as proof that Booth was dead?

Second-- (and this gets thrown around a lot so I'll toss it out there) His recollection is more than twenty-five years old. Why can we be sure his memory is factual?

We address all the challenges you bring up in our supplement. Lawrence Gardner had a chance to view the autopsy and recalled that the man had a broken leg, the tattoo with the JWB initials and the scar on the neck which was identified by Dr.May. He also said that they took Herold's photo that day and that Herold acknowledged that it was John Wilkes Booth. He was quite confident that the corpse was the assassin.

Although this article appeared 25 years after the event, Gardner was just 42 years old. He wasn't suffering from dementia or old age and was not seeking any sort of fame and recognition for his comments.

---

(05-30-2013 02:22 PM)LincolnMan Wrote:  I too am disappointed that, apparently, there is no photo-and maybe there never was. It strikes me as somewhat odd that Gardner was working under the order of Stanton to take the photo. You mean to say he disobeyed Stanton? Wouldn't it have been better to take the photo anyway and let Stanton decide its outcome. So did Eckert make the decision to not take the photo without speaking to his Superior about it?

Eckert, along with Charles Dana, was an assistant Secretary of War. I imagine he had the authority to say whether the photo should be taken or not.