(07-12-2013 08:23 PM)Rhatkinson Wrote:  What was R. T. Lincoln's criticism of Olroyd?

This article may answer some of your questions.

http://illinoistimes.com/Springfield/art...useum.html

Lauri, thanks for answering my questions.

Very interesting article. Thanks for sharing it.

Additionally, Dr. Wayne Temple devotes an entire chapter to this topic in "By Square and Compass: Saga of the Lincoln Home." Please see the chapter titled The Oldroyds (pp. 195-220).

(07-12-2013 07:58 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I never met Mr. Ostendorf, and he is now deceased. I don't feel that it is fair for us to judge him on this occasion. Does anyone know what happened to his Lincoln-related holdings?

Laurie, I think(?) collector Keya Morgan acquired a large part of Ostendorf's Lincoln-related holdings.

On a side note:

For those of you who know me: You know that if any of these gentlemen were alive at the time I came across this article, my first call would have been to Laurie to see if she had their phone numbers or contact information. I'd want to share my findings with them first to see if they were aware of it and if it would have changed their minds.

Researching isn't about breaking stories all the time, its about learning and trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together. Some things are more important than others but its always satisfying to put some things to rest and move on to the next thing.

Did David Herold accompany Powell to the Seward residence on April 14, where is the Booth autopsy photo, did Dr. Mudd know about the assassination plot, etc.? Until a MAJOR discovery is made, we are left to ponder and solve some of the smaller mysteries.

That's why I appreciate this subject so much. Studying the Lincoln assassination story has taught me so much about the Civil War and the different men who lived at that time. It really is a fun journey.

If anyone has a differing opinion or a counter-argument to our conclusions, we look forward to discussing the facts. PLEASE! We shared our work with some of the best in the business in hopes they would dissect our find and offer their feedback.

For the record, some people we have a healthy respect for remain unconvinced that Lawrence Gardner's word should be the last on the matter. That's ok, its what makes the world go around.

Educated guesses and speculation are important parts in researching, but we remain confident that our conclusions can be backed by supporting evidence.

John, you have a great attutude. That's one of the things I enjoy so much on this site. The sharing of information. The polite give and take. The humor. But mainly, this is a friendly place to come and learn more about a fascinating time in our countries history, about some great, and not so great people who played a part in it all.

Laurie, I think(?) collector Keya Morgan acquired a large part of Ostendorf's Lincoln-related holdings.

Years ago, I tried to contact Mr. Morgan, but never got a response. Of course, I have subsequently lost the contact information. If anyone has it, I'll be happy to contact him again, specifically inquiring about the Wardell letter.

The Alexandria, Virginia, Public Library System is a member of the Surratt Society, so I am going to contact them to see if they can verify the presence of a James Wardell in any of their city directories for that time period. I'm sure that that is one of the first places that Mike Kauffman checked, but just in case... John, yell at me before Monday if you have already checked with Alexandria.

Quote:Researching isn't about breaking stories all the time, its about learning and trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together. Some things are more important than others but its always satisfying to put some things to rest and move on to the next thing.

Such a great attitude, John - and so very, very true. Like fox hunting - it's not about riding to "the kill" or the find, but it's all about the chase. This is what keeps me going -- putting the pieces together is the REAL thrill of it all! At least it is to me....

(07-12-2013 07:58 PM)L Verge Wrote:  This person, however, evidently uses several aliases or just his e-mail moniker in his correspondence.

For some reason that struck me; I wonder why someone would use an alias while doing research of this kind.

Going back to the "Gardner said/Wardell said" beginnings, I was struck by the fact that 17-year-old Lawrence Gardner said that Eckert, the Assistant Secretary of War, came to the Gardner home and took them in his carriage to the Navy Yard and got in without any question. On the other hand, Wardell claims that he escorted the photography crew to the Yard and was not allowed in until Lafayette Baker showed up.

Having already been helping his father in the photography field, Lawrence certainly would have known who Eckert was and what he looked like, and it seems he would have mentioned if they had been denied entrance to the Navy Yard. Assistant Secretary of War holds a pretty strong presumption of power. Even twenty-six years later, I think 42-year-old Lawrence would remember such things clearly.

(07-14-2013 06:43 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Going back to the "Gardner said/Wardell said" beginnings, I was struck by the fact that 17-year-old Lawrence Gardner said that Eckert, the Assistant Secretary of War, came to the Gardner home and took them in his carriage to the Navy Yard and got in without any question. On the other hand, Wardell claims that he escorted the photography crew to the Yard and was not allowed in until Lafayette Baker showed up.

Having already been helping his father in the photography field, Lawrence certainly would have known who Eckert was and what he looked like, and it seems he would have mentioned if they had been denied entrance to the Navy Yard. Assistant Secretary of War holds a pretty strong presumption of power. Even twenty-six years later, I think 42-year-old Lawrence would remember such things clearly.

I wonder where they put all the photography equipment in Eckert's carriage? I suppose they could have met their equipment there. Doesn't ring true to me. Doesn't mean that it isn't of course.

(07-13-2013 09:17 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Laurie, I think(?) collector Keya Morgan acquired a large part of Ostendorf's Lincoln-related holdings.

Years ago, I tried to contact Mr. Morgan, but never got a response. Of course, I have subsequently lost the contact information. If anyone has it, I'll be happy to contact him again, specifically inquiring about the Wardell letter.

The Alexandria, Virginia, Public Library System is a member of the Surratt Society, so I am going to contact them to see if they can verify the presence of a James Wardell in any of their city directories for that time period. I'm sure that that is one of the first places that Mike Kauffman checked, but just in case... John, yell at me before Monday if you have already checked with Alexandria.

Laurie. This "John" can say that I did not find ANY Wardells living in Alexandria, during or after the war. There was a Wardell in D.C. but it appears he was in the "Boots and Shoes" business. This same guy had a business in Baltimore, at the same time - Ladies Boots and Shoes. I checked the Census and the City Directories, for Alexandria. The Library may have some Church Registries, or Professional Clubs etc. He may have been boarding somewhere, and because he was a detective, he is not listed. ( Ask about a roster of City Employees.) (or a Police report where he made the arrest.) If someone has a program for "Newspapers", please, try the Wardell name and see what comes up.

I believe that we are dealing with a problem in semantics - When we ask "Did they take a photograph of Booth?", because that can have two meanings. 1. Did they take a "Portrait" of Booth?. Ans. NO!
2. Did they take a photograph of the "Autopsy"? Ans. YES!
We do have that sketch of the autopsy, that is said to have been based on a photograph of Booth on the plank table aboard the Monitor - and was used in the newspapers.
Thus, Yes, we have a photograph of Booth. No, we do not have a photograph of Booth. Both answers are correct.

OK, John, it's too hot for my brain to absorb that. Personally, I do not think that a photograph had to be produced in order for the artists to make a rendering of what they supposed the scene to look like. They could pretty much "get it right" by just assuming what it looked like without really seeing a photo. Who would prove them wrong in their details?

To me, a portrait is different from a photograph. Also, IF there was a photo taken, it was for the purpose of identifying Booth - not capturing the whole spectrum of the autopsy. The artists included the full spectrum.

According to Wardell/Kautz, he was with the photographers assistant throughout the development process and took the print & plate negative striaight to the War Dept and gave it to Col. Baker. So when and how did the sketch artist get a chance to look at it. Did Wardell dis-obey Stanton's orders and let them look at it?

(07-15-2013 04:27 PM)SSlater Wrote:  I believe that we are dealing with a problem in semantics - When we ask "Did they take a photograph of Booth?", because that can have two meanings. 1. Did they take a "Portrait" of Booth?. Ans. NO!
2. Did they take a photograph of the "Autopsy"? Ans. YES!
We do have that sketch of the autopsy, that is said to have been based on a photograph of Booth on the plank table aboard the Monitor - and was used in the newspapers.
Thus, Yes, we have a photograph of Booth. No, we do not have a photograph of Booth. Both answers are correct.

I believe (based on evidence) that the only photos taken that day on board the Montauk, were of David Herold.

The Harper's Weekly illustration of the autopsy was an artist's rendering and not taken from a photograph.

The other illustration we have of the autopsy DID NOT come from Frank Leslie's Illustrated (As stated in They Have Killed Papa Dead) but from the book "The United States Secret Service In The Late War" published in 1889. See page 367.

I don't believe James A. Wardell ever existed. IF he did, his story contains enough omissions and errors to make me believe it was false.

Lawrence Gardner's reminisces contain information that most people were not aware of until recently. Specifically, that there were multiple photo sessions and not just one on April 27, 1865.

The evidence is overwhelming in my opinion and puts this ages old debate to rest. I'm convinced that some people will not change their minds on the matter and will continue to speculate on the photo's whereabouts. Count me out! I'm done keeping my eyes open for the elusive and mythical photograph.

---

(07-15-2013 05:06 PM)Gene C Wrote:  According to Wardell/Kautz, he was with the photographers assistant throughout the development process and took the print & plate negative striaight to the War Dept and gave it to Col. Baker. So when and how did the sketch artist get a chance to look at it. Did Wardell dis-obey Stanton's orders and let them look at it?

Hi Gene,

Small correction - The spelling is Katz, not Kautz. As you probably know, Kautz was actually one of the nine commission members who decided the fates of the conspirators on trial.

P.S. - I recognize the path you are going down with your comments and observations. Its the same one which led me to believe the Wardell letter was false BEFORE I came across the Lawrence Gardner article.