Post Reply 
Booth/St. Helens 1904 facial comparison
04-16-2014, 10:37 AM (This post was last modified: 04-16-2014 10:41 AM by Jenny.)
Post: #1
Booth/St. Helens 1904 facial comparison
I was reminded that I have this not too long ago when someone mentioned the dreaded "Booth" mummy in a thread here. No idea if y'all have seen this before or not so I figured I would share just in case no one has.

This is a facial comparison between John Wilkes Booth and the man called John St. Helens that was part of the mummy exhibit from when the mummy visited the World Fair in St. Louis in 1904.

I don't know about you guys but this has me super convinced that John Wilkes Booth escaped. Angel

[Image: 2rxth05.jpg]

This one is my favorite. I refer to it as "JWB on drugs." I mean, really, look at those eyes!
[Image: 9vhwtd.jpg]

Enjoy!

"Right or wrong, God judge me, not man."
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-18-2014, 08:28 AM
Post: #2
RE: Booth/St. Helens 1904 facial comparison
Wow, They do look quite similar! However, I believe Booth's hairline would have receded somewhat. Does anyone know how old St. Helen was when that photograph was taken? I believe that Francis Wilson included it in his book published in the 1920s. He probably got it from Bates, but I have never seen an original copy of Bates book so I am not sure if he included it in there or not.

Craig
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-18-2014, 08:42 AM
Post: #3
RE: Booth/St. Helens 1904 facial comparison
Hi Jenny and Craig. Hopefully someone with younger eyes can help me here. Is that the same photo that Dave T. has on his site?

If it is the photo was taken in 1877.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-18-2014, 10:43 AM
Post: #4
RE: Booth/St. Helens 1904 facial comparison
No idea how old the St. Helens guy was when the tintype was taken. I would guess in his forties but that's just a wild guess.

I can tell the picture used in the comparison shows the same man as Dave has on the BoothieBarn although I can't quite say if it is exactly the same image - to me it looks like it but it's hard to tell with that darn crack. I tried to send this to Dave earlier; maybe he can tell for sure.

It amuses me that whoever created the fair poster clearly had to stretch the faces in several images to make them fit.

"Right or wrong, God judge me, not man."
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-18-2014, 12:12 PM
Post: #5
RE: Booth/St. Helens 1904 facial comparison
The first time I saw this comparison, my first thought was that the real Booth had "bedroom eyes," while the fake looked like a deer in the headlights. I still feel that way.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-18-2014, 12:43 PM
Post: #6
RE: Booth/St. Helens 1904 facial comparison
That sums it up nicely, Laurie.

"Right or wrong, God judge me, not man."
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-18-2014, 07:18 PM
Post: #7
RE: Booth/St. Helens 1904 facial comparison
A mix up of names here. John St.Helen lived in Granbury, Texas in the early 1870s. David E. George (Note use of conspirator's names David (Herold) George E. (Atzerodt.) lived and died in Enid, Oklahoma in 1903.

In my "mummy" files I have a copy of a letter Mrs. Finis Bates wrote to Henry Ford in 1922 offering to sell him the mummy for $1,500. Ford declined. (Since Ford had purchased the chair Lincoln was assassinated in. Mrs. Bates assumed he would want the mummy.)

I also have copies of over a dozen letters from Henry Ford to various Ford dealers in the Midwest. He is ordering them to track down specific people that may know something about "Booth the mummy." Ford supplied the names for his dealers to interview and the dealers sent him transcripts of the interviews. The transcripts are lost, but I have copies of the letters from the dealers offering a synopsis of their interviews. In his conclusion, Ford did not feel that the mummy was really Booth.

Rick Brown
HistoryBuff.com
A Nonprofit Organization

PS: If any of you know of any Civil War Musters or Historical Festivals in the Michigan, Indiana, Ohio or Illinois being held this summer, please provide me with the name and address for the contact person for the event. I have prepared a custom DVD with condensed videos of what I have to offer to add to their event.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-18-2014, 07:49 PM (This post was last modified: 04-18-2014 07:58 PM by Jenny.)
Post: #8
RE: Booth/St. Helens 1904 facial comparison
Oh, the name is "St. Helen" without an "s." Oops. It's been a looong time since I've thought about this in detail. Apologies.

Not sure if you are just stating the names or implying that these were two different men. Wink If it's the first, ignore the following.

I believe Bates went to Enid and identified David E. George's body, concluding it was the same man as "John St. Helen" who had allegedly confessed to Bates that he was JWB thirty years prior in Granbury, Texas. So the picture of John St. Helen used for the comparison would have been the same man who was the actual mummy. David E. George = John St. Helen ("St. Helen" in reference to the island Napoleon was exiled, St. Helena). Same imposter using two different names at different times and places.

"Right or wrong, God judge me, not man."
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-19-2014, 09:31 AM
Post: #9
RE: Booth/St. Helens 1904 facial comparison
I think that is how most people have interpreted it also, Jenny. As for the interest that Henry Ford showed in the ruse, the Surratt Courier carried articles years ago about his chief investigator's work on this. For the life of me, I can't remember the man's name right now. Blaine Houmes, if you are not on Easter Bunny rounds this weekend, please help identify Ford's rep.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-20-2014, 08:54 AM
Post: #10
RE: Booth/St. Helens 1904 facial comparison
(04-19-2014 09:31 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I think that is how most people have interpreted it also, Jenny. As for the interest that Henry Ford showed in the ruse, the Surratt Courier carried articles years ago about his chief investigator's work on this. For the life of me, I can't remember the man's name right now. Blaine Houmes, if you are not on Easter Bunny rounds this weekend, please help identify Ford's rep.

Frederick L. Black. He was editor of the Dearborn Independent, published by Henry Ford. Black's archive is at Oakland University in Rochester Hills, MI. Between March and June 1925, Mr. Black wrote a withering set of articles discrediting Finis Bates and the Enid Mummy.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-20-2014, 11:04 AM
Post: #11
RE: Booth/St. Helens 1904 facial comparison
Thank you, Blaine. It's great to have back-up brains when one's own starts to fail.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-20-2014, 11:27 AM
Post: #12
RE: Booth/St. Helens 1904 facial comparison
(04-18-2014 07:49 PM)Jenny Wrote:  Not sure if you are just stating the names or implying that these were two different men. Wink

Rick, like Jenny it almost sounds like you are referring to two separate people. Maybe I am misunderstanding your wording. But if you feel they were two separate people could you kindly expound? Thanks. I have always understood the same individual used both names.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-20-2014, 04:11 PM
Post: #13
RE: Booth/St. Helens 1904 facial comparison
Both were the same person. Bates claimed he met St. Helen in 1870s Texas. Then when David E. George died in Oklahoma, Bates "recognized" George as the same man as St. Helen he met years ago.

There is another person that claimed to be John Wilkes Booth though. Its been too long for me to remember the details other than he was a parson.

Rick Brown
HistoryBuff.com
A Nonprofit Organization
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)