Identification of Booth's body

[mikegriffith1]

(10-14-2018 07:58 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Richard B. Garrett also said arm. [SNIP]

"The slayer of President Lincoln died in my father’s barn. His remains were most thoroughly identified from a photograph and the printed description that was possessed by the soldiers. There is not the shadow of a doubt but that his wild life was ended by Sergeant Corbett’s bullet. I was there and was present at the identification. I know how thorough it was because it was the first intimation that my father had entertained for two days as his guest as an injured stranger in need -- the slayer of President Lincoln. I know how surprised we all were when it dawned upon us that the man lying dead before us could be no other than Booth. There were the tattoo marks of his initials on his arm, and the comparison with the picture was perfect. God never made two men exactly alike as the dead man and the one whose photograph there could be no doubt was Booth’s. Point by point the printed description held in the detective’s hand was followed out. Height, color of hair and eyes, every scar and mark tallied exactly. The crowning evidence of course, was the name of the actor done in India ink on his arm."

I take it you believe these claims? I do not. If he saw a mirror image between the corpse and whatever photograph of Booth he was talking about, one wonders what body Lawrence Gardner and John May saw.

And I guess these folks who belatedly claimed they saw the initials were unable to tell the difference between a hand, a wrist, and an arm. It's really not that hard to distinguish between the three.

I get it that some here find the theory that Booth escaped to be incredible and unbelievable. Well, I find the identification on the Montauk to be incredible and unbelievable. Just imagine if a prosecutor walked into a courtroom and tried to explain the lack of a single crime-scene photo of the alleged, and now buried and unavailable, murder rifle in a case, and imagine what any sensible judge would say in response, such as what follows:

Quote:Prosecutor: Well, Your Honor, the detectives decided not to take any photos of the murder rifle at the crime scene because the weapon looked very different from the murder rifle when it was fired.

Judge: Huh? What do you mean the rifle at the crime scene did not look like the murder rifle when it was fired? Is this some kind of joke?

Prosecutor: Well, uh, you see, due to the fact that the rifle was thrown on the ground several times after it was fired at the victim, the rifle bore no resemblance to how it looked when it was fired. However, we have two witnesses at the scene who say they saw a large scratch on the rifle's
barrel, and the original owner said there was a large scratch on the barrel. Also, we have one witness at the scene who says he saw the killer's initials in the middle of the rifle's stock, although the original owner said the initials were on the part of the stock that was close to the trigger.

Judge: Okay, did the detectives at least take a picture of the initials and the scratch?

Prosecutor: Uh. . . . Well. . . . Ummm. . . . Actually, no, they didn't.

Judge: What?! Why in the devil not?!

Prosecutor: Well, uh, uh, because the rifle looked nothing like it looked when it was fired.

Judge: Are you drunk? Were they drunk? What kind of an excuse is that not to take crime-scene photos of the weapon or at least the parts where they saw potentially distinguishing marks?

Prosecutor: Yeah, well, I'll have to ask them that question! But, we have several witnesses at the scene who say they were able to identify the rifle as the murder weapon by its general appearance.

Judge: Its "general appearance"? You just said that the detectives didn't take any crime-scene photos of the rifle because it looked nothing like it looked when it was fired! So how in the world would these witnesses have "identified" the rifle by "its general appearance"?

Prosecutor: [Thinks to himself, "Gosh, that is a very good question!"] Well, Your Honor, we do have the two witnesses who say they saw the scratch on the barrel and the one witness who says he saw the initials on the stock!

Judge: This "large scratch": Did either of the witnesses describe its length and width and any distinctive features in their statements given that evening?

Prosecutor: Well, about that. . . . Uh . . . no. They just said it was "a large scratch."

Judge: So how do you know that it's the same scratch that the original owner said was on the barrel of his rifle?

Prosecutor: Humm. . . . Uh. . . . Well, I guess I don't know.

Judge: Uh-huh, and when the one witness on the scene who supposedly saw the initials noticed the initials on the rifle at the scene, did he point them out to any of the detectives or police officers who were there?

Prosecutor: Uh, well, uh, we have no record that he did.

Judge: What?! Are you kidding me? He said nothing to anyone there about seeing the initials?

Prosecutor: For some reason, no, he didn't.

Judge: Uh, okay. That's very odd, to say the least. Did either of the detectives make a note of the initials in their reports?

Prosecutor: [Blank stare]

Judge: Hello?

Prosecutor: Uh, well, shucks, for some reason or another neither of them said a word about the initials in the reports they wrote right after they processed the crime scene.

Judge: Well, do any of the crime-scene reports done by the police officers mention the initials?

Prosecutor: Uh. . . . Humm. . . . Well, actually, technically speaking . . . no, they don't mention them either.

My gut reaction is, Are you kidding me? This is the "persuasive case" that Booth was shot in the barn and that it was his body that was examined on the Montauk? No surviving autopsy photo. Not even a picture of the initials or the scar. No identification witnesses who knew Booth well, even though many were readily available, including a few below deck, were asked to ID the body. Only one of the ID witnesses supposedly noticed "JWB" initials on a "hand" but didn't breathe a word about them to anyone else who was there. The man's dentist supposedly showed up but left no report, was not interviewed by Holt, and was not even listed as one of the witnesses. Two of the people on the boat said the body was heavily freckled, but Booth was not freckled--and one of them said that everyone was shocked at how much the body did *not* look like Booth, and the other said that he had *never* seen a corpse that had changed in appearance so much from how the person looked in life. Etc., etc., etc.

This the case that is supposed to be so ironclad that it is self-evidently true? On the contrary, I would say that this case is so shot full of holes that it is self-evidently unbelievable and suspicious.