** NEW DISCOVERY REGARDING BOOTH AUTOPSY PHOTO

[barryssentials]

Hi all: Barry here. What a great discussion this has created. There are so many things I want to address but let me start with what I do best - OBSERVATIONS. But so as not to hide my feelings about Mark Katz book (not Mark Katz as I never knew him) I have serious concerns about parts of his book that I can historically address myself. There are many identifiable or questionable statements that are just flat out incorrect. Some could be simple mistakes or based on the history that is now outdated (we all know how fast things change). Those I can easily forgive. Our own work gets outdated all the time. But what bothers me more are several 'fabrications' that the facts just do not support. It weakens the entire book (which for the most part, may be very valid research). But because of some of these painfully obvious fabrications, it makes me doubt every word I read in his book. The same thing happened with Osborne Oldroyd's book when I discovered that he had changed the wording in a letter he received from Christian Rath regarding his involvement in the execution. As many of you know, by changing that one sentence to support his theory, it changed our view of that historical event for over 100 years until the error was identified. So for me, when the trust is gone, it is very hard to get it back. I will always view the content in both Katz and Oldroyd books with a grain of salt...but at the same time, still tell you there is some fascinating stuff in both of them.

BASIC OBSERVATIONS FROM KATZ BOOK.
1. As Linda pointed out, the Wirz execution photos are footnoted in the back of the book with his own interesting observations. Katz mentions the conspirator executions as well and states on page 292: "At the conspirators' execution Gardner used two cameras, as discussed in the text: one large format camera and one stereoview camera. A study of the photographs makes clear that once these cameras were in position, neither was moved. There was only one camera used at the Wirz hanging. All of Gardner's photographs were taken from the same point, and all, including the postmortem view, were made with an 8 x 10 camera".
Regrettably, Katz is mistaken in both of his statements. At first glance, the Conspirator execution photos taken with the two cameras seem to support Katz's observation. But at least two major camera angle changes can be seen by the full format camera, the first in All is Done (1), the first photo showing the bodies resting after the drop. Gardner swung his full format camera to the left to take in the media scrum that occurred just to the north side of the scaffold. Much more of the penitentiary is visible in this shot. Next, he swung the same camera to the far right to take the photo of the Pine Boxes.
The Wirz execution photos (x4) are even more dramatic in change in angle. If you have the book, the upper right-hand photo is the first in the series and shows a soldier testing the rope. The Capitol Building dome is visible in the background. Gardner then changed his position by moving his camera location further to the right when he took the next two photos found on the left hand page. Finally, after Wirz has been hanged, he moved back to the right and higher up this time and took his last photo, again showing the Capitol Bldg dome in the background. You can tell he moved higher up by comparing the location of the crossbeam against the backgrounds in the various photos.
I know these are nitpicky observations, but it allows you to see for yourself what is, and isn't fact.

2. A much more troubling conflict can be found on page 178 of Katz's book. It relates to the Rooftop or Courtyard View and the photo taken of General Hartranft and his staff. Katz showed his 'creative writing skills' when he described the arrival of Gardner and O'Sullivan at the penitentiary and what immediately followed. Like Oldroyd, he inserted his own 'facts' to make his theories work. Katz describes expertly how Gardner and O'Sullivan set up their cameras, explaining who operated each one and in which windows they were positioned (by the way, Katz got this wrong too [he has the camera positions reversed] as can be verified by looking at the angles taken from the execution photos). But more disturbing is the very wild story he tells about Gardner sending O'Sullivan up to the corner building [Model Arsenal building] to take an overall view of the scaffold and courtyard. He claimed this was taken as the first photo in the series and showed the soldiers were testing the traps. As we all have seen by observation, this photo was actually the last shot taken out of the ten images from that day and shows the the bodies already hanged and suspended from the ropes. Even if one could forgive Katz for making an observational mistake, he still continued his story with even more flare and fiction. Katz goes on to say that upon O'Sullivan's return from taking this rooftop shot, he stopped and persuaded General Hartranft and his entire senior staff to pose for their group photo beside the scaffold. Ignoring the photographic fact that none of this occurred 'before the hangings', Katz continues with his fantastical story by saying O'Sullivan convinced the general and his men to stop everything they were doing to take this photo with less than 1-1/2 hours before the executions. It seems he was trying to prove that the chairs the men are shown photographed sitting on were later used on the scaffold. The entire paragraph is a total fabrication. Nonsense! The bottom line for me is that Katz proved he can write very creatively when it suits his purposes (as shown here). Could he have been the author of the Wardell letter? It's a very plausible theory...but with no hard proof. The Wardell letter is extremely well-crafted and without a doubt, seems true. Finding flaws in it have been difficult and everyone here has done a great job trying to pick it apart. John and I have done the same. Some arguments are much stronger than others. But for me, Katz has been caught in at least one major fabrication and his observations are somewhat shoddy. I personally can't trust anything written in his book after this. And although I just don't know whether or not it was he who authored the Wardell letter, it did appear in only his book. To my knowledge it has never appeared or been written about in any publication prior to his book. I believe the letter is a well written-hoax. Who the author was and when it was written are still a mystery. Sorry to go on so long but I just wanted to touch base on this one. Best. Barry