Identification of Booth's body

[mikegriffith1]

(01-19-2019 06:05 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  Mike , you being a former member of the armed forces, I'd be interested in your reply to Rob's above Post with reference to what Conger meant when he said "arm".

The record is clear that "arm" was merely another term for "weapon/gun." You can see this clearly in various reports and in the testimony of several witnesses at the conspiracy trial.

In addition to Dr. Robert Arnold, Theodore Roscoe, Leonard Guttridge, Ray Neff, Professor Arthur Ben Chitty, and Nathan Orlowek, there are other scholars who have concluded that Booth did not die at the Garrett farm. Dr. John Chandler Griffin, W. C. Jameson, and Theodore Nottingham have also concluded that Booth was not the man in the Garrett barn.

Dr. Griffin is a professor emeritus at the University of South Carolina and the author of numerous books on historical subjects, including two books on Lincoln and the Civil War. His biography of Thomas Wolfe received the History Book of the Year Award from the North Carolina Historical Society. In 2000, Governor Jim Hodges of South Carolina named Dr. Griffin to the Order of the Silver Crescent, the highest award the state can give to a citizen. Here is an excerpt from Dr. Griffin’s book on the Lincoln assassination:

Miss Chapman goes on to say that Charles Bishop unwrapped the blanket from the corpse [at the 1869 viewing of the body of the man shot in Garrett’s barn] and stood for long moments gazing at the remains. Says Miss Chapman:

“Mr. Charles Bishop then carefully drew off one of the long riding boots, which were still on the feet of the body, which had evidently lain in the earth for years, and as he did so the foot and lower portion of the limb remained in the boot. An examination was then made, and it was plainly seen that the ankle had been fractured.”

The fact that the corpse was apparently wearing two boots is a most remarkable revelation, for according to the official records of the assassination, Dr. Samuel Mudd cut away the boot encasing Booth’s fractured leg on the morning of April 15, 1865. Dr. Mudd inadvertently kept the boot at his home, where it was later discovered by Federal officers. . . .

If the military commission had this boot in their possession long before “Booth” secretly had been buried beneath the flooring at the military arsenal, just how could that boot possibly have gotten back on the corpse being investigated at Weaver’s Undertaking Parlor in Baltimore, Maryland, in February 1869? . . . If the military commission was telling the truth when they displayed the boot of John Wilkes Booth, then it stands to reason that the corpse examined at Weaver’s Undertaking Parlor, the corpse wearing two boots, was not that of John Wilkes Booth. (Abraham Lincoln’s Execution (Pelican Publishing Company, 2006, pp. 408-409)

Jameson is an award-winning author of dozens of non-fiction and historical-fiction books. Here is an excerpt from his book on John Wilkes Booth:

Boyd was placed on the federal payroll and given the responsibility of reporting on Confederate prisoners’ escape plans. He was moved often and may have spent time in as many as five different prisons as an undercover agent. Shortly after being sent to Port Lookout, Maryland, an old ankle wound on his right leg developed a severe infection. In need of having it drained and treated, Boyd arranged for a transfer to Hammond General Hospital on May 20, 1864.

While incarcerated at the Old Capitol Prison, Boyd learned that his wife had died. He wrote a letter to Stanton requesting a transfer to Tennessee, where, he said, he was willing to serve as a spy. He informed Stanton of the death of his wife. He also wrote that his seven children were living on charity and that he wished to be near them.

On the day after receiving Boyd’s letter, Stanton had the spy brought to his quarters. There, the secretary of war informed him that he would be freed if he would accept an important assignment. . . .

Continuing and concentrated research and investigation into the traditional version of the flight, pursuit, and alleged killing of John Wilkes Booth have yielded a number of pertinent and troubling inconsistencies. . . . The evidence presented herein points to the likelihood that the conspiracies to kidnap and kill President Abraham Lincoln extended to the higher echelons of public office and implicates some of Lincoln’s close associates, including a cabinet member. Prominent among these interpretations is the revelation that the assassin, John Wilkes Booth, did not die at the hands of the federal soldiers at Garrett’s farm but rather went on to live another forty-three years. . . .

Most historians have written that the second rider [along with Booth] was David Herold. Recently uncovered information, along with Cobb’s own testimony, casts serious doubt on this identification. Furthermore, encounters with documents long made unavailable provide evidence suggesting that the rider was Ed Henson. . . .

Most Lincoln-era historians agree that if Stanton wanted Booth captured, he would have made certain the actor’s name and likeness were broadcast far and wide as soon as his role in the assassination was determined. Stanton, however, was apparently in no hurry to capture Booth or to inform the country of the identity of the murderer. . . .

When Captain James William Boyd heard the news of the Lincoln assassination, he was stunned, disappointed, and frightened. . . . Boyd was now concerned that the subsequent investigation would eventually lead to him and that he would be in great danger. The Confederate spy was convinced that he would be set up to take the blame. . . .

Around 7:00 a.m., the suspect died where he lay. History has long recorded that it was John Wilkes Booth, but from the time the man was dragged out of the burning barn, a great deal of confusion reigned, and doubt was expressed regarding his actual identity. Prevailing evidence suggests that it was not John Wilkes Booth at all but rather James William Boyd. (John Wilkes Booth: Beyond the Grave, New York: Taylor Trade Publishing, 2013, pp. 22, 84-85, 87, 92, 138)

Nottingham is an author and translator who has written non-fiction works on spirituality, historical and metaphysical fiction, and children's books. Some of his translations of classic spiritual works have been published by major Catholic publishing houses. Here is an excerpt from Nottingham’s book on John Wilkes Booth:

According to the testimony of the Garrett family, the man dragged onto the porch was wearing a Confederate uniform. Townsend also agrees and adds that the Garretts never deviated that the man who had been brought to their house was a Confederate soldier named John Boyd.

However, Major Ruggles and Bainbridge, whom Booth had met as he crossed the Potomac River, said that he was wearing black. In an article in The New York World, Townsend explains that he must have changed clothes at Dr. Mudd’s home. But Thomas A. Jones, who met Booth the day after he left the doctor’s house, describes him as wearing black as well. . . .

Two soldiers at the Garrett farm, Joseph Ziegen and Wilson D. Kenzie, state in affidavits that the man shot in the barn was wearing a Confederate uniform and soldiers’ boots. (The Untold Story of John Wilkes Booth, Theosis Books, 2010, pp. 170-171).

Two of the major problems with the traditional story about Booth’s fate are (1) the fact that Rollins had no problem recognizing the man he had seen on crutches as the man in the photo of Booth that Conger/Baker showed him, and (2) the fact that if Booth was the man the Garretts knew as James Boyd, then Booth’s appearance should have markedly improved during his stay there, since he received several meals and slept for a very long time his first night at the farm (he slept in until quite late the next morning). So there was absolutely no reason that less than 48 hours later Booth’s body would have looked very different from how Booth looked in life.

[Steve]

(01-30-2019 07:04 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Jameson is an award-winning author of dozens of non-fiction and historical-fiction books. Here is an excerpt from his book on John Wilkes Booth:

Boyd was placed on the federal payroll and given the responsibility of reporting on Confederate prisoners’ escape plans. He was moved often and may have spent time in as many as five different prisons as an undercover agent. Shortly after being sent to Port Lookout, Maryland, an old ankle wound on his right leg developed a severe infection. In need of having it drained and treated, Boyd arranged for a transfer to Hammond General Hospital on May 20, 1864.

While incarcerated at the Old Capitol Prison, Boyd learned that his wife had died. He wrote a letter to Stanton requesting a transfer to Tennessee, where, he said, he was willing to serve as a spy. He informed Stanton of the death of his wife. He also wrote that his seven children were living on charity and that he wished to be near them.

On the day after receiving Boyd’s letter, Stanton had the spy brought to his quarters. There, the secretary of war informed him that he would be freed if he would accept an important assignment. . . .

Continuing and concentrated research and investigation into the traditional version of the flight, pursuit, and alleged killing of John Wilkes Booth have yielded a number of pertinent and troubling inconsistencies. . . . The evidence presented herein points to the likelihood that the conspiracies to kidnap and kill President Abraham Lincoln extended to the higher echelons of public office and implicates some of Lincoln’s close associates, including a cabinet member. Prominent among these interpretations is the revelation that the assassin, John Wilkes Booth, did not die at the hands of the federal soldiers at Garrett’s farm but rather went on to live another forty-three years. . . .

Most historians have written that the second rider [along with Booth] was David Herold. Recently uncovered information, along with Cobb’s own testimony, casts serious doubt on this identification. Furthermore, encounters with documents long made unavailable provide evidence suggesting that the rider was Ed Henson. . . .

Most Lincoln-era historians agree that if Stanton wanted Booth captured, he would have made certain the actor’s name and likeness were broadcast far and wide as soon as his role in the assassination was determined. Stanton, however, was apparently in no hurry to capture Booth or to inform the country of the identity of the murderer. . . .

When Captain James William Boyd heard the news of the Lincoln assassination, he was stunned, disappointed, and frightened. . . . Boyd was now concerned that the subsequent investigation would eventually lead to him and that he would be in great danger. The Confederate spy was convinced that he would be set up to take the blame. . . .

Around 7:00 a.m., the suspect died where he lay. History has long recorded that it was John Wilkes Booth, but from the time the man was dragged out of the burning barn, a great deal of confusion reigned, and doubt was expressed regarding his actual identity. Prevailing evidence suggests that it was not John Wilkes Booth at all but rather James William Boyd. (John Wilkes Booth: Beyond the Grave, New York: Taylor Trade Publishing, 2013, pp. 22, 84-85, 87, 92, 138)

This will be the third time that I've asked you to respond to my earlier post about Boyd. Yet you keep bringing him up as being the person killed in Garrett's barn but yet each time you keep avoiding/not responding to my replies. I'm reprinting my earlier post below to refresh your memory and make it easier to find:

(12-29-2018 03:44 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Three, Boyd was 41, which would explain why Dr. May said the body on the Montauk looked "much older" than Booth looked the last time he'd seen him, which was just over a year earlier. When Rollins was shown a picture of Booth less than 48 hours before the barn shooting, he had no problem recognizing the picture as Booth, and the only difference he noted between the picture and how Booth looked when he saw him was that Booth had no mustache when he saw him. Rollins didn't say anything like "and, oh yeah, when I saw him, Booth looked a lot older than he does in the picture."

Mike, do you believe/assert that the "Boyd" killed at Garrett's farm the James W. Boyd of the 6th Tennessee, who was released after taking the oath of allegiance and giving a promise to spy for the Union? If not, where does this "41" age that you assert for "Boyd" come from and who are you claiming he was? Specifically which Confederate soldier(s) named "James Boyd" could've been the person killed at Garrett's Farm, if it wasn't the Boyd of the 6th Tennessee?

If you can't find such a Confederate soldier named James Boyd that could've been killed at Garrett's farm:

(a) Wouldn't that be a strong indication that the person was lying and using an alias, say I dunno… like Booth?

(b) Where does that "41" year age you give "Boyd (which matches the age of James W. Boyd of the 6th Tennessee) come from?



Getting back to Rob's point about proving a point by documented evidence... here is the letter James W. Boyd, of the 6th Tennessee, wrote on February 14, 1865 where he offers to spy for the Union if he can be released as a paroled POW. He says that he wants to spy in order to earn money to help support his 7 children who have been dependent on charity following his wife's death and to get revenge for being court-martialed twice:







The letter comes from the National Archives, Record Group 94, Microfilm M797, Roll 135. From the Baker case files of the Turner-Baker papers, original case file no. 718B.

Most importantly for the purposes of this discussion, he volunteered to spy in western Tennessee and parts of Kentucky west of the Tennessee river. He even uses his knowledge of that area and its people as a selling point on why that would make him a good spy. Boyd was released the next day, so he should've been nowhere near Maryland in April 1865 if he was specifically released to help provide for his now motherless children and spy for the Union in Tennessee.

Here's a newspaper account of James W. Boyd's 01 Jan. 1866 murder from page 2 of the 10 Jan. 1866 edition of the Memphis Daily Avalanche, first published in the West Tennessee Whig of Jackson, Tennessee



Note, this is the year following the death of the man called "Boyd" at Garrett's farm. The article doesn't mention Boyd's 6th Tennessee military service, but fortunately another source does, the diary of a local man named Robert H. Cartmell. In the last paragraph of the first page below continuing onto the top of the second page, Cartmell says the James W. Boyd killed on 01 January 1866 in Tennessee was indeed the James W. Boyd of the 6th Tennessee. That would make it impossible for him to have been the man called "Boyd" who was killed at Garrett's farm the prior year:





Link to the full Robert H. Cartmell diary collection:

http://teva.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/landi...5138coll39

I hope this provides enough documented evidence that the man killed at Garrett's barn could not possibly be the James W. Boyd of the 6th Tennessee (ignoring all the evidence that it was Booth and just focusing on the documentary evidence from Boyd's life). Hopefully, it meets the standard of documentary evidence put forward by Rob to prove an argument and will be a useful instruction on how to craft an historical argument using evidence and logic.

[L Verge]

Steve - I doubt that you will ever get a straight and factual answer to your questions. And now that I see Mr. G is throwing in the likes of Griffin, Jameson, and Nottingham (none of which should be considered experts in this field, IMO), we are sinking even deeper into the muck and mire of poor history.

[Steve]

(01-30-2019 07:04 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Dr. Griffin is a professor emeritus at the University of South Carolina and the author of numerous books on historical subjects, including two books on Lincoln and the Civil War. His biography of Thomas Wolfe received the History Book of the Year Award from the North Carolina Historical Society. In 2000, Governor Jim Hodges of South Carolina named Dr. Griffin to the Order of the Silver Crescent, the highest award the state can give to a citizen. Here is an excerpt from Dr. Griffin’s book on the Lincoln assassination:

Miss Chapman goes on to say that Charles Bishop unwrapped the blanket from the corpse [at the 1869 viewing of the body of the man shot in Garrett’s barn] and stood for long moments gazing at the remains. Says Miss Chapman:

“Mr. Charles Bishop then carefully drew off one of the long riding boots, which were still on the feet of the body, which had evidently lain in the earth for years, and as he did so the foot and lower portion of the limb remained in the boot. An examination was then made, and it was plainly seen that the ankle had been fractured.”

The fact that the corpse was apparently wearing two boots is a most remarkable revelation, for according to the official records of the assassination, Dr. Samuel Mudd cut away the boot encasing Booth’s fractured leg on the morning of April 15, 1865. Dr. Mudd inadvertently kept the boot at his home, where it was later discovered by Federal officers. . . .

If the military commission had this boot in their possession long before “Booth” secretly had been buried beneath the flooring at the military arsenal, just how could that boot possibly have gotten back on the corpse being investigated at Weaver’s Undertaking Parlor in Baltimore, Maryland, in February 1869? . . . If the military commission was telling the truth when they displayed the boot of John Wilkes Booth, then it stands to reason that the corpse examined at Weaver’s Undertaking Parlor, the corpse wearing two boots, was not that of John Wilkes Booth. (Abraham Lincoln’s Execution (Pelican Publishing Company, 2006, pp. 408-409)

Just to add to my reply to Mike above - When the body believed to be Booth's was exhumed in 1869, it was found to have only one boot, with the other foot wearing a shoe. From page one of the 17 Feb. 1869 edition of the Baltimore Sun:

[RJNorton]

(01-30-2019 07:04 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  there are other scholars who have concluded that Booth did not die at the Garrett farm.

Scholar Carl Sandburg, who won several Pulitzer Prize‎s, initially felt the Wilma Minor letters were genuine.
Did that make them authentic?

[AussieMick]

Mike G wrote: "If the military commission had this boot in their possession long before “Booth” secretly had been buried beneath the flooring at the military arsenal, just how could that boot possibly have gotten back on the corpse being investigated at Weaver’s Undertaking Parlor in Baltimore, Maryland, in February 1869? "

One possibility ( there may well be others, but the most logical one to my mind) is ... that someone put a boot on the corpse.
Some people might think it indecent or improper for a corpse (that of a murderer or not) to be laid to rest with nothing on one foot. It would be quite normal for someone to obtain a boot, from perhaps a rubbish tip or whatever, and place it on the corpse. Putting it on would have been difficult ... and would probably require the boot to be slit. Makes sense to me. Plain common decency, I'd suggest.

[mikegriffith1]

(01-30-2019 10:06 PM)Steve Wrote:  Just to add to my reply to Mike above - When the body believed to be Booth's was exhumed in 1869, it was found to have only one boot, with the other foot wearing a shoe. From page one of the 17 Feb. 1869 edition of the Baltimore Sun:

I am tempted to say, "You must be kidding." The 1869 "identification" is even more problematic than the 1865 one. The article you present does not address a single one of the problems with the 1869 identification.

I am not going to reinvent the wheel and repeat all the problems with the 1869 identification. I have discussed them in several previous replies in this thread. Please see my previous replies, or see my two articles on the evidence that Booth escaped.

As for the fact that "arm" and "arms" were common synonyms for "gun/guns" and "rifle/rifles," this fact is abundantly documented in period sources, including in many documents related to the Lincoln case, such as the conspiracy trial transcript. Surely at least some here have heard of the famous 18th- and 19-century command "to arms, to arms!" It didn't mean to go grab your upper-body limbs. A few examples of "arm/arms" being used of gun/guns/rifle/rifles from the conspiracy trial transcript--these are from Poore's trial transcript:

Peace had not then been conquered; there was a powerful enemy in arms" (vol. 1, p. 3)

[Lloyd explaining about when the rifles were hidden at the tavern] "Yes, sir: I put them in there. I stated to Colonel Wells, through mistake, that Surratt put them there; but I put them in there myself. I carried the arms up myself. (vol. 1, p. 113)

Q. At the time you commenced the occupancy of the premises, did you find any arms in the house? (vol. 1, p. 117)

Q. Then Mr. Surratt was the one who gave the arms into your charge?" (vol. 1, p. 125)

Q. Do you know which buggy brought them up?
A. I did not see the arms taken out of the buggies at all; I did not see anything of any arms until they were shown to me on the sofa: but, from the position of Herold’s buggy, I supposed he was the one who brought them. (vol. 1, p. 125)

Q. Did you see any arms in their rooms?
A. I saw a pistol once; only once. (vol. 1, p. 138)

Q. Did you ask Dr. Mudd whether he charged anything for setting the leg?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did he say?
A. I did not ask him if he had charged anything. I asked him if the men had much money about them. He said they had considerable greenbacks. I then asked him if they had arms about them. He said, “This injured man”—he did not say Booth—“had a pair of revolvers.” (vol. 1, p. 260)

[From Conger's testimony] There were two Garretts; by that time another one had come from somewhere; and Lieutenant Baker said to one of the Garretts, “You must go in the barn, and get the arms from those men.” (vol. 1, pp. 309-310)

[From Conger's testimony] Baker said, “They know you, and you can go in.” Baker said to the men inside, “We are going to send this man, on whose premises you are, in to get your arms; and you must come out and deliver yourselves up.” (vol. 1, p. 310)

So when Conger said that the man in the barn "dropped his arm" and started heading toward the door just before he was shot, he was clearly saying that the man dropped his weapon and started walking toward the door just before he was shot.

[AussieMick]

No. Mike, you have failed to deal with the word 'arm'.
The problem that you have , Mike, with all (and I mean all) your references/examples to 'arms' is that .... in each case the word when relating to weapons is plural.

Sorry, but you really ought to duck your head on this one and move on.

[Gene C]

AussieMick is right.
I found MileGriffith1 conclusions on this to weak.

[Rob Wick]

Quote:[From Conger's testimony] There were two Garretts; by that time another one had come from somewhere; and Lieutenant Baker said to one of the Garretts, “You must go in the barn, and get the arms from those men.” (vol. 1, pp. 309-310)

[From Conger's testimony] Baker said, “They know you, and you can go in.” Baker said to the men inside, “We are going to send this man, on whose premises you are, in to get your arms; and you must come out and deliver yourselves up.” (vol. 1, p. 310)

So when Conger said that the man in the barn "dropped his arm" and started heading toward the door just before he was shot, he was clearly saying that the man dropped his weapon and started walking toward the door just before he was shot.

Oh my God. Do you not understand that this is Conger repeating what someone else said? Your whole nonsensical point is that Conger referred to the carbine as an "arm." Yet in the two examples you provide, Conger did not say that.

You also sidestep my other point that if Booth had dropped the carbine, Conger would have had no reason to argue with Byron Baker that Booth had killed himself.

As for your "experts," I would love for you to show where any member of the Garrett family testified that Booth was wearing a Confederate uniform. Quit quoting what other people say and provide the d a m n citation with title, date and place of publication, and page number. The only Garrett to testify anywhere was John Garrett who testified at the trial of John Surratt. He was never asked, and never testified, to what Booth was wearing. Here is the actual, real testimony.

Do you even have any thing that you can prove? If not, I wish you would quit wasting our time. I have an article on Lafayette Foster to finish.

[L Verge]

And I asked him to update his article on Lafayette Foster so that we could carry it in the April issue of the Surratt Courier. If he's late getting it to us, we'll blame the distractions you have thrown at him...

[Steve]

Mike, I was making the point that contemporary accounts of the exhumation said there was only one boot on the body, not two like you claimed in your post. Well actually, you pasted somebody else's claim without critical or equivocating comment, in order to make the same argument but without "technically" being on record making the claim if someone found/posted evidence it wasn't true. I included the quote of the section of your earlier post to indicate specifically what I was replying to (the corpse having two boots), which was contradicted by contemporary 1869 newspaper reports. You just ignored my argument and made some comment about not trusting the 1869 identification. You also didn't reply to my earlier analysis of you Boyd evidence for a third time.

Here's a link to the passage of Griffin's book:

https://books.google.com/books?id=bFI9Ck...th&f=false

The quote from Blanche Chapman (later Ford) comes from a 1927 letter, written nearly sixty years later. Blanche would've been 17 years old in Feb. 1869. Her account in the 1927 letter also says that Mary Ann Booth was satisfied that the body was Booth and doesn't seem to note any significance to the body's footwear. If Blanche's account is true and the Booths indeed let their cousins, like Blanche, view the body - then how can you make an argument out of what seems to be an insignificant detail to Blanche where the passage of six decades and Blanche's age might have obscured some details like differences in the two pieces of footware worn by a corpse? Memories can mistakes after such a long period of time.

Now to this current discussion about Conger and "arms", I'm pasting below a transcription of the 28 April 1865 letter of Pvt Emory Parady of the New York 16th Cav. describing the events at Garrett's farm to his parents. As far as I know it's the earliest written account of the event. Note that Parady agrees with Corbett's account and saw the man in the barn raise his carbine, presumably in order to fire the weapon, when the shot that took the man out was fired.


Washington D.C. April 28th 1865

Dear Father & Mother

I will write again in hopes of hearing from you as it is so long since I've had intelligence it causes me much anexity. Bert is the only one I heard of for a long time he was well & stated he had not heard from you for several weeks & thought he would give up writing as he had no answers.

You have doubtless heard of Booth the Murderer of President Lincoln.

We caught him & Harrold on the morning of the 26th in a Barn.

Fortunately they were locked in or they would escaped when we surrounded the House as we thought they were there & after threatening the owner of the Places lif {sic} one of his sons (a soldier from Lees army) came up & told they were there or at least two suspicious characters & locked up in the Barn one by the name of John Wm. Boyd his reason for choosing that name was account the initials J.W.B. on his left hand.

Harrold surrendered & Booth would not on any conditions his only terms were if we moved back 50 paces from the Barn he would come out & fight us & told us if we shot him to shoot him through the Body through the heart says he Boys make a stretcher

We told him we would fire the Barn if he did not come out & give up his arms he was armed with two Revolvers a Carabine seven shooter & two Bowie Knives the longest one was Bloody on both sides of the blade

we fired the {barn} as it was dark between 3 & 4 in the morning & he could see us & we could not see him but as soon as the fire lit up he tried to stamp it out & found he could not so he ran back to the midle of the floor & was in the act of raising his caribine when crack when a Pistol & with with {sic} Col. Baker Chief detective rushed in & caried him out

He was shot through the Neck about 2 inches lower than Mr. Lincoln was his last words were Mother! My Mother My Mother he could just whisper

well I will close as I feel very dull today & when I see you will tell you more about it

we were on the chase three days & three nights without sleep & hardly any thing to eat so you may judge I am not very lively today

We caught him across the Raphannock three miles from Port Royal.

no more at present

from Emory
address as before Write soon


Here's the relevant portion of Conger's testimony during the Assassination Trial (I've underlined the most important part for this discussion):

The only thing I noticed he had in his hands when he came was a carbine. He came back, and looked along the cracks one after another rapidly. He could not see any thing. He looked at the fire; and, from the expression of his face, I am satisfied he looked to see if he could put it out, and was satisfied that he could not do it, it was burning so much. He dropped his arm, relaxed his muscles, and turned around, and started for the door for the front of the barn. I ran around to the other side; and, when about half round, I heard the report of a pistol. I went right to the door and went in, and found Lieutenant Baker looking at him, or holding him, raising him up, I do not know which. I said to him, "He shot himself." Said he, "No, he did not, either." Said I, "Where-about is he shot? — in the head or neck?" I raised him then, and looked on the right side of the neck. I saw a place where the blood was running out. Said I, "Yes, sir: he shot himself." Lieutenant Baker replied very earnestly, that he did not. I said to him, "Let us carry him out of here: this will soon be burning." We took him up, and carried him out on to the grass underneath the locust-trees, a little way from the door.

From the context of Conger's words (following "dropped his arm" with "relaxed his muscles") it's clear that he means the limb, not the carbine. Conger testified that he was running to the other side of the barn after he saw the man inside heading toward the door when he heard the pistol shot. So, he wasn't looking at the man inside the barn as the shot was fired and wouldn't have been able to see the man raise his carbine, presumably to fire, as Pvt. Parady and Sgt. Corbett both saw the man doing. Since Conger never saw Booth raise his carbine, it would've been logical for him to have suggested to Baker that Booth shot himself when they first came upon the body.

Here's a link to the full text of Conger's testimony at the trial so you can examine it for yourself. The link opens to the part of the text I've excerpted above:

https://archive.org/details/conspiracytr...r/page/316

[Gene C]

MikeGriffith1 brings up an interesting and frequently overlooked issue.

If the body at the second burial was Booth's, who's boots was he wearing?

Which reminds me of a song.
Fortunately after several seconds of intense research I think I have uncovered a possible solution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp8wnA2rk3c

[Rob Wick]

Gene,

In all actuality, I think this one is more historically accurate.

Best
Rob

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbyAZQ45uww

[L Verge]

(02-01-2019 04:54 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Gene,

In all actuality, I think this one is more historically accurate.

Best
Rob

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbyAZQ45uww

It might be a tie. With Booth's reputation with women, his boots likely made it under lots of beds -- and then Booth (not the lady of the moment) would put on the boots and walk on to another woman's boudoir.