Identification of Booth's body

[Susan Higginbotham]

(09-27-2018 07:48 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(09-27-2018 01:03 AM)SSlater Wrote:  I would like to thank everyone who has replied. Even though I have read it all before. (It's good to see it all in one place) . However, I am not convinced. I believe ALL that is said, but there has never been any PROOF offered. Does "a pimple on the neck of the corpse" convince you that it was really Booth? Based on that evidence, I would not have chipped-in to bury the man. A body buried for "5 years" isn't identifiable by sight, or by hear-say.
I do agree, that further identification will not accomplish anything, and that is part of my "wish" - that it had been handled differently.

---

(09-27-2018 01:03 AM)SSlater Wrote:  I would like to thank everyone who has replied. Even though I have read it all before. (It's good to see it all in one place) . However, I am not convinced. I believe ALL that is said, but there has never been any PROOF offered. Does "a pimple on the neck of the corpse" convince you that it was really Booth? Based on that evidence, I would not have chipped-in to bury the man. A body buried for "5 years" isn't identifiable by sight, or by hear-say.
I do agree, that further identification will not accomplish anything, and that is part of my "wish" - that it had been handled differently.

P.S. If the Identification had been done properly, there would have no room for the frauds that were perpetrated on the public.

It was more than a pimple on the neck; it was quite a distinguishable scar. A plugged tooth in the skull of a man whose dental records are being used for identification is good evidence -- and a technique that is still used today. So many identifications made of the body while it was still intact on board the monitor stand for nothing? What would you have done differently, John? Let's get real folks.

Wasn't his tattoo noted as well?