Identification of Booth's body

[mikegriffith1]

The identity of the man in the barn who died in Booth's place is a secondary issue. I still think Guttridge and others have made a credible case that his name was Boyd, especially since the Garretts said he used that name. But, maybe it was just a cosmic coincidence that a Confederate Boyd with an injured leg was in southern MD/northern VA at the same time a man named Boyd visited the Garrett farm and was shot there.

The real issue for believers in the traditional story is that there is no way on this planet that Booth would have undergone such a drastic change in appearance during his 12-day flight that his corpse bore "no resemblance" to his body in life. Let's recap:

* Booth's 12-day flight was not even close to being a harsh and brutal experience that could have changed his appearance so much as to make him unrecognizable in death. He was fed almost every day. He spent at least three nights indoors and at least five days in shaded woods with blankets to keep him warm. I have shown that the temperature were not extreme but actually rather mild. If he was the Boyd who spent his last two days at the Garrett farm, then the harsh-journey claim collapses. He got plenty of rest, had ample food, played with kids, and relaxed on the porch with the family--and no one said he looked anything like death warmed over, or terribly pained, or noticeably ragged and worn out.

* If it were possible for a journey such as Booth's to produce such a drastic change in his appearance as a corpse, surely the history of forensic science would include similar occurrences. But they don't. In fact, earlier in this thread, I documented numerous cases where bodies that were exposed to far harsher conditions than Booth was were readily identifiable by family and friends.

* When a witness was shown a photo of Booth less than 72 hours before the autopsy, he had no problem identifying the picture as a photo of Booth, whom he had seen hours earlier. This was just before Booth supposedly spent two days of leisure, good food, and lots of rest at the Garrett farm. So, humm, when did the unearthly change in appearance mandated by the traditional account happen?

* Bodies do not sprout freckles by magic just because the traditional theory requires it. Livemortis produces large patches of dark-colored skin and always on the parts of the body closest to the ground, not freckles on the face. Extensive exposure to sun can indeed cause a type of sun-burn freckling, but Booth did not experience extensive exposure to the sun--not even close.

* The "evidence" of the JWB initials only raises obvious suspicions that this whole line of evidence was fabricated. With all the people who--years later--belatedly claimed that they saw the initials on the Montauk body, never mind that they differed wildly on where the initials were located, it is just patently amazing that not one blessed word about this crucial item of identification evidence managed to find its way into the autopsy report. Not. One. Word.

And when Dr. May showed up and expressed strong disbelief that the body was Booth, nobody who had allegedly seen the JWB initials bothered to say, "Oh, but doctor, look, here are Booth's initials on the body's hand/wrist/arm."

* Nor did the autopsy report contain any mention of any of the visible scars that Booth was known to have. Nor did it mention the ring that Booth always wore. No one recalled seeing a ring on the Montauk body's fingers, and no ring was ever listed as being among the items taken from the body.

* The 1869 "identification" only further damages the traditional story and raises the distinct possibility that the 1869 body was not the body viewed on the Montauk--unless every "witness" on the Montauk, including both doctors, somehow missed visible damage to the knee and hair that was 10-12 inches longer than it should have been.

* If the 1869 body was Booth, the teeth should have had two fillings, not one. If we want to assume that this was one of the rare cases when a tooth falls out of a corpse's mouth, then the Booth dental chart would not have agreed with the corpse's teeth, but no such discrepancy was noted.

* Speaking of corpse teeth and dental evidence, gee, where is Dr. Merrill's report on his alleged dental-based identification of the body on the Montauk? Where is it? Why is there no trace of his being there in any official record of the Montauk autopsy proceedings? Why didn't he go to the 1869 viewing and set the record straight? He could have told them that the body would have to have two fillings if it were Booth's body.

* The 1869 body had hair that was 10-12 inches longer than Booth was ever seen to grow his hair. Colonel Pegram, a long-time Booth friend, like everyone else in his day, believed that hair continued to grow after you died, so he just assumed it had grown 10-12 inches in the preceding four years. But, of course, we now know that hair and nails either do not grow at all after death or they grow only a fraction of an inch at the most.

* Many of these issues might be cleared up if we had just one, just a single, autopsy photo of the body. But, even though a well-known photographer was brought to the Montauk for the purpose of taking these crucial photos, we are told that those in charge decided against taking any photos--because the body looked so UNlike Booth! Yet, we have a friendly, pro-government witness who said that he personally handled and transported a "Booth" autopsy photo and that the photo was given to . . . (wait for it) . . . Edwin Stanton. If that photo really did show Booth, the War Department surely would have displayed it when doubts about the body's identity became widespread.