Identification of Booth's body

[mikegriffith1]

(12-29-2018 04:35 PM)Gene C Wrote:  

(12-29-2018 03:44 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  You guys can keep ignoring the scientifically problematic aspects of the two so-called "identifications" of the body as Booth, but that won't make them go away.

One, the two people you refer to that stated the body was freckled also clearly stated the body was Booth's. The "freckles" don't prove anything, because that "evidence" is surpassed by a clear and definitive identification of the body by the same witness.

A "clear and definitive identification of the body"??!!! Let us paraphrase this "clear and definitive identification" from the statements by May and Gardner:

"The body looked nothing like Booth. It was very much changed. Never before had a body undergone such a change in appearance from life to death. The man's face was very much freckled, and he looked much older than Booth. The lineaments--distinctive features, mainly of the face--bore no resemblance to Booth. We even took out photos of Booth and compared them to the body, but could no see resemblance. We were all struck by the lack of resemblance. But, nevertheless, eventually we positively identified the body as Booth, and we are certain we are not wrong."

(12-29-2018 04:35 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Three, Boyd was 41. So what. So what if the body looked older to Dr. May than the last time he saw it.
Dr May still states clearly the body was Booth's.

Yes, and that's what's called a severe contradiction. That's what's called an unbelievable statement that would be shredded on cross-examination even by a rookie lawyer.

I guess you're not going to address the fact that the original handwritten transcript of Dr. May's testimony clearly suggests he was stumbling over his words when he claimed that, in spite of the difference in appearance, he was certain the body was Booth?

Any first-year law student could tell you that you can't just take a person's statement at face value when it contains so many obvious contradictions and problematic assertions. You folks cling for dear life onto May's halting statement that, in spite of everything he noted about the differences in appearance, he was certain the body was Booth, and you refuse to address how May could say this with a straight face given the differences he had noted and given his flimsy excuse for finally making the identification (the scar on the back of the neck).

(12-29-2018 04:35 PM)Gene C Wrote:  I see no need to go further with your speculation, when you haven't overcome this first hurdle in your discussion.

In other words, you won't venture to address the scientific problems with the identification because Dr. May, after noting drastic differences in appearance between the body and Booth, finally ended up saying that he was certain the body was Booth.

So if Joe Witness said he was certain that the man he saw crossing the street was John Doe, you would simply accept this summary claim, even if Joe Witness also said that the man he saw crossing the street (1) had freckles, unlike John Doe; (2) looked much older than Joe Doe; (3) had facial features that "bore no resemblance" to Joe Doe; and (4) that when he first saw the man crossing the street, he noted that the man looked nothing like John Doe?

According to what you're saying here, you would. You would accept Joe Witness's final claim and would ignore all the problems and contradictions in his statements leading up to his final claim. Because that's exactly what you're doing with Dr. May's and Gardner's statements.

It is apparent that you cannot explain why Dr. Merrill's statement vanished, why Dr. Merrill was never deposed by Holt that day, why even Dr. Merrill's presence on the boat was withheld/expunged from the official record of the event, why Dr. May and Gardner said the man was heavily freckled, why no photo of the body survives, why Dr. Barnes did not at least insist on taking photos of the alleged tattoo and the neck scar, why the body on the Montauk did not have a single one of the facial or neck-down scars that Booth was known to have, why Luther Baker took off with the body for hours, why Rollins--on April 24--had no problem seeing the resemblance between the photo of Booth that Conger/Baker showed him and the man he'd seen on crutches hours earlier, why the body at the 1869 viewing had only one filling when it should have had two, why the body at the 1869 viewing had visible damage near the knee when no one ever claimed Booth suffered damage near the knee, why the body at the 1869 viewing had hair that was a foot longer than Booth's hair, how a body that was easily recognizable from photos as Booth on April 24 could change its appearance so drastically less than 72 hours later, etc., etc.