** NEW DISCOVERY REGARDING BOOTH AUTOPSY PHOTO

[John E.]

(05-30-2013 05:47 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  John, I think the Lawrence Gardner account is valuable. Before this, the scale of the "Booth autopsy photograph" weighed in favor of its existence. With this account, I see it being balanced, if not a bit closer to the "does not exist" side.

The Lawrence Gardner account helps balance the scale, but I'd need a bit more than this to truly tip it to the "never happened" side. Find a source that gives credence to Lawrence Gardner's words and that'll help considerably.

Hey Dave, why was the scale of the "Booth autopsy photograph" in favor of its existence? What evidence are you basing that on? What is the value of the source of this evidence ?

That's exactly the approach I took to forming my own opinion and this last piece of evidence solidified my view. Barry took on your role as Devil's Advocate and continued to challenge me on my opinions and findings. We work very well that way.

This is a case-closed for me and I will gladly accept that I'm wrong when someone shows me a photo of Booth in death. I tend to question things a lot but this is one of those times that I'm putting my foot down and saying definitively that the photo was NEVER taken.

Our supplement breaks down the evidence supporting the existence of an autopsy photograph and exposes its flaws.

[L Verge]

I can name some outstanding scholars in this field who have tried for 150 years to find evidence that the photo existed - to no avail. If they had found anything to fully corroborate it, don't you think they would have shouted from the roof tops? I can think of at least ten such scholars immediately.

Frankly, I think John has done a masterful job of finding evidence that the photo does not/did not exist, and the evidence is from an eyewitness who had the opportunity to take everything in that day -- not just twenty seconds to figure out why that weird man was hopping across the stage at an inopportune time.

He approached his subject exactly like a trained historian (and John isn't one, to my knowledge) should have. Now the challenge is for someone out there to prove him wrong... Good luck looking for the next 150 years!

[Dave Taylor]

John, my only basis for originally tipping the scale in favor of the photograph, was the newspaper engravings and my own arbitrary knowledge of The story regarding the one sole print. It was never anything I looked into and, like so many of us do on so many things, I accepted what I was told from others.

I am so looking forward to your supplement, and I'm sure it will alleviate any lingering questions I have. Your research is top notch, John. Keep it up.

[John E.]

(05-30-2013 06:33 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I can name some outstanding scholars in this field who have tried for 150 years to find evidence that the photo existed - to no avail. If they had found anything to fully corroborate it, don't you think they would have shouted from the roof tops? I can think of at least ten such scholars immediately.

Frankly, I think John has done a masterful job of finding evidence that the photo does not/did not exist, and the evidence is from an eyewitness who had the opportunity to take everything in that day -- not just twenty seconds to figure out why that weird man was hopping across the stage at an inopportune time.

He approached his subject exactly like a trained historian (and John isn't one, to my knowledge) should have. Now the challenge is for someone out there to prove him wrong... Good luck looking for the next 150 years!

Thank you very much Laurie. You words are sincerely appreciated. This is a case where this was the last piece of evidence for me, not the first. All I was missing was a "Smoking Gun" type of find to support my opinion.

The other statement I'm ready to make is that Timothy O'Sullivan was neither at the Navy Yard or the Arsenal Penitentiary to help Alexander Gardner capture the executions. The idea that he was ever at either place is based on research that was never properly sourced or sited.

This too will be included in our next supplement.

---

(05-30-2013 06:35 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  John, my only basis for originally tipping the scale in favor of the photograph, was the newspaper engravings and my own arbitrary knowledge of The story regarding the one sole print. It was never anything I looked into and, like so many of us do on so many things, I accepted what I was told from others.

I am so looking forward to your supplement, and I'm sure it will alleviate any lingering questions I have. Your research is top notch, John. Keep it up.

Hey Dave, I appreciate your comments and value your opinion. I'm secretly hoping you prove me wrong and come up with the photo. Who wouldn't want to see it?

Right now, Charles Jendresen is bumming over the new find. Jeff Elliott done ticked him off with this one. He's pretty motivated to prove me and Barry wrong. As you know, his film 'Killing Lincoln' dedicated an entire scene to how Booth's autopsy was photographed on board the Montauk by Gardner and his partner Timothy O'Sullivan.

Barry and I made the same mistake and trusted Mark Katz's research. Our second supplement repeats the same old error that others have made. In other words, if you believed the photo existed, you are in good company.

[L Verge]

It's been years since Mark Katz's book came out, and it is a beautiful book. Joan Chaconas and I had some communication with Mark during that period, and he really knew how to sell himself. I do remember some low rumblings at the time about some of his claims and research. Maybe what John has found will prove some of those rumblings accurate.

[barryssentials]

Hi. I spent most of the afternoon with Angela and David Smythe investigating Rev. Armstrong history in the newspapers. What a crazy character. He was a reverend who was caught in bars, houses of ill repute, etc and was eventually kicked out of his church. That aside, he sounds like he was a very loved character. In numerous responses from friends who commented in the newspapers at the time of his death, all indicated that although he had a close appearance to that of the actor, never once did Armstrong claim to be John Wilkes Booth and denied it to the day of his death. He even submitted evidence that he was studying in college far away from Washington at the time of the assassination. Reverend Armstrong is a 'movie of the week' if anyone cares to write it!
Barry

---

Hey Bill: To help give you an answer to your question, I need to tell you a bit more about what John hasn't included here. Lawrence Gardner stated that he and his father were collected by Major Eckert on the morning of the 27th and driven to the Navy Yard with the intent of taking the photo. It was Eckert who was in charge and he made the decision to abort the photo session. It certainly seems illogical to us today considering they were right there and could have easily snapped the shot, but this is how Gardner related the story, so we have to leave it to how each of us wish to interpret that move. Gardner mentions that they did stay onboard to take Herold's photo and in sporadic conversation with him, Herold indicated that the body was in fact that of Booth.
Barry

[J. Beckert]

This is all very interesting and kudos to John & Barry for their research. This has me thinking now about the woodcut of Booth on the slab. I think, if there were a picture, folks would expect it to look just like it. If a picture was taken, and as stated, rushed off to the War Dept., what did the artist work with? Was he there or was this just a fabrication of what he thought it would look like?

[L Verge]

Armstrong sounds like a priest that our congregation endured until we couldn't take it anymore. Please tell me he wasn't Anglican...

[BettyO]

Quote:This has me thinking now about the woodcut of Booth on the slab. I think, if there were a picture, folks would expect it to look just like it. If a picture was taken, and as stated, rushed off to the War Dept., what did the artist work with? Was he there or was this just a fabrication of what he thought it would look like?

Joe, I think that a lot of these drawings were kith and ken in the artist's mind. If you look at the engravings of the trial room and actually visit the actual room, you'll see that the room is not that large - actually, it's pretty much like Holzer's "Rubber Room" theory regarding Lincoln's death room at the Peterson House - like Topsy, it simply grew and grew.... same with the autopsy photo; it was a concept more or less of the artist's mind AFTER he probably talked to a few of the doctors/officers involved in the actual autopsy.

[barryssentials]

Valid point Dave. Before May 17 (when John came across the article), we were all believers to some degree. As John indicated we work really well at playing Devil's Advocates with one another. This discovery directly contradicts our previous beliefs about this subject. In fact it now makes some of the content in our last published 'blue' supplement obsolete. So these are now either worthless, or a great collector's item (LOL). Can you say "SECOND EDITION"?

John and I had a few tough conversations about 'boldly stating John's strong belief in the evidence (which is damn strong) versus 'my more soft sell approach. Clearly we came up with compromises on both sides of the discussion and I'm really glad with the results.

The doubts I carry are only based on wanting second and third sources to back up L. Gardner's article along with my intrigue about the Wardell letter. For the record, I DO BELIEVE it was a complete fake and associated with two names that I've very little confidence in (Katz & Oldroyd).

But on the other hand, the Wardell letter is so wonderfully crafted. It may have parts of it that are weak and not very plausible (as John will point out in the supplement), but on the other hand, there has been no hard evidence until L. Gardner's direct contradiction to prove it wrong. It has stood the test of time since 1999. Whoever the author was did a pretty damn good job.

Barry

[J. Beckert]

That sounds right, Betty. Was Waud the woodcut artist? He did some fantasticly accurate sketches of Ford's. I'm sure pulling off a sketch like that from shore wasn't a tall order.

[BettyO]

Sketch artists for Harpers were Alfred Waud (including his brother, William, who had initially worked for Frank Leslie's.) Winslow Homer also worked for Harpers. Edwin Forbes was another popular artist as was James McCollum.

[wsanto]

The Wardall letter (if not a forgery) is still somewhat weakly corroborated by the presumable source for the the NY Times article that claimed a photograph was taken.

Although I tend to agree with John, I would be fully convinced by strong evidence that the Wardall letter is a forgery or if any one else present at the autopsy corroborated Lawrence Gardiner's claim that no photo was taken.

[John E.]

Hello Wsanto,

Mike Kauffman could not find anything on Wardell ever existing, nor could I or a couple of other genealogy enthusiasts that Barry and I know. Nothing in the census records or city of Alexandria records (where he supposedly lived).

The NY Tribune was at the mercy of what they were told. No reporters were on board the Montauk. All they had to do was ask Gardner what he was doing there. If he said he was there to take a photo of Booth, he wasn't lying. That's what he believed he was going to do before arriving at the ship. He ended up taking a photo of Herold.

NO ONE else corroborated the NY Tribune report. NO eyewitness mentioned Gardner taking a photograph of Booth.

Like I mentioned before, I started with the evidence suggesting a photo was ever taken and broke it down for validity purposes. Turns out, it was all pretty weak in my opinion.

[Jim Garrett]

Hey John & Barry, Can I call you guys friends? So I can say, "My friends John & Barry.........."