My Journey on Lincoln's Assassination

[Rob Wick]

Quote:We dont know how much smoke there was (Filling the barn? suffocating the man? blinding him so that he couldnt see where he was stumbling?). We dont know (as far as I'm aware) where Conger was standing and what he could see, where Corbett was and what was going thru his mind, how much light there was in the barn ( the fire was lit from outside), we dont know how vigorous the fire was burning, what the person did when the fire began and whilst the fire was burning (choke? crawl away? cover his head? immediately advance to the door? where was the fire? near the door?), we dont know how easily the person could move with or without a crutch, nor even how near he was to the door before he was shot, nor whether he was shot standing up or kneeling or crawling or stumbling.

Actually, AussieMick, we do know much of that. Everton Conger gave four official accounts of the capture of Booth. The first came on April 26, 1865 aboard the Montauk (along with Byron Baker). The second came during the trial of the conspirators, the third came during the trial of John Surratt and the fourth came during the impeachment investigation against Andrew Johnson. Somewhere in papers long stored away, I have all four. Conger testified that before he set the barn on fire, Booth could see the soldiers but they could not see him. Once the fire started, the exact opposite took place. The soldiers could see Booth but he couldn't see them (that also explains how Conger knew Booth relaxed his muscles, as he testified during the conspiracy trial). Conger was at the rear of the barn when he set the fire. Once it began burning and he saw what he described as Booth's movements he began to walk toward the front of the barn. He was at the side of the barn when he heard Corbett's pistol. The fire was burning vigorously. In fact, after Booth was shot and Conger had entered the barn along with Byron Baker, they almost immediately had to get out because the fire was spreading quickly.

Quote:I'd suggest that neither Conger's (you called him a 'henchman' in one of your posts and I'd agree) nor Corbett's (he was mentally unstable and had reasons for wanting to justify his shooting) statements can be relied upon.

Conger was not a henchman. He was a dedicated soldier turned detective who nearly lost his life twice for the Union cause. His statements are definitely trustworthy.

Back in the 1990s I wrote a five-part series on Conger for a newspaper I worked for and where Conger lived for around ten years. I have the manuscript available in a PDF format that I will send to Roger and have him upload it. If I had the chance now I would certainly rewrite it, and some of the things I wrote I later discovered to be incorrect (plus, I uncovered new material that I didn't have access to at the time). It will give everyone a nuanced picture of who Conger was.

Best
Rob