** NEW DISCOVERY REGARDING BOOTH AUTOPSY PHOTO

[barryssentials]

Hi Laurie: You did a great job in summarizing the Wardell letter.
It does have several things in it that are certainly questionable but still hard to prove (maybe John Fazio can comment on some of these coming from a 'legal' point of view. What is truth, what is conjecture and what is assumption. That is why this is such a fascinating letter. There are not that many parts of the letter that allow you to challenge what is said with 'hard evidence' to the contrary. In my opinion, the one point that is most likely able to be challenged is the one concerning Wardell's claim that he appeared before the Commission.

I am not a trial specialist, but as far as I know the conspirator trial was meticulously documented (ie. Poore, Pittman, etc). Newspaper coverage was daily. From what I have been told by people who know the trial well, no such appearance by anyone named Wardell appears in the Military Commission transcripts nor is there any mention of a Booth autopsy photo. For those of you who know the trial transcripts best, can you confirm this?
The supplement that John and I are preparing right now will include several observations found within the Wardell letter to challenge it's authenticity. Admittedly, some are based on our opinions in lieu of hard facts (logical assumptions) while others are stronger arguments.

In summary, John and I believe that the Lawrence Gardner interview puts a very strong case forward to prove that the Booth autopsy photo was never taken. It also challenges the validity of the Wardell letter and Timothy O'Sullivan's involvement in the Montauk photo shoots (we also do not believe he was present at the conspirator executions for differing reasons to be covered at a later date). The only place where I differ slightly from John's viewpoint in all of this is that I think the L. Gardner/Wardell conflict still feels like a "he said/she said" scenario. We both agree that the Gardner interview carries a lot more clout than the Wardell letter for reasons previously stated. My only hesitation is that so little of the Wardell letter can truly be challenged with hard facts. I need to see it completely debunked to put my mind at ease. Until then, it will nag at me. That is why I think this is going to continue to create great debate until resolved. Gardner vs. Wardell...one of these two sources are phony (at least in part), so let the games begin. Barry