May 13, 1865 harper's Weekley picture of autopsy of Booth's Body at
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundati...-death.htm

http://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln83.html

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/do...38/?no-ist
https://awesometalks.wordpress.com/categ...psy-photo/
Note -if the man at right is Alexander gardner-who could have taken the missing photograph? Was it Sullivan?

A Frank Leslie version appears on page 182 of Kunhardt's "Twenty Days"

Nomann - it's a shame that you are not registered for the Surratt conference this weekend. Over 140 people will get an in-depth discussion from our forum member, John Elliott, who contributed the piece for the awesometalks site that you mentioned above. John has based his on-going research on one of the best primary sources a historian could ask for -- an eyewitness who was also the son of the photographer who was "supposed" to take a photo of the dead assassin.

For fifty years (compared to history's 150 years), I have prayed for the so-called death photo to be found stashed away in a box somewhere. Since it has yet to be produced, I think we have to consider that Lawrence Gardner (said eyewitness and son) may very well be correct in saying that no photo was taken of the dead assassin.

Personally, I place little faith in illustrations provided by newspapers, journals, etc. during this era. Artists were engaged to provide visuals, but it didn't mean that those visuals came from the artist being on site at the event or even drawing from a photo. The idea was to get the CONCEPT of what happened out to the public who would spend the dime to get the impression of news as it happened. I will admit, however, than some of these illustrations are fine pieces of work - accurate or not.

Hello Nomann! Many have noticed the remarkable resemblance between the bearded man and Alexander Gardner. We know Gardner was present on the monitor Montauk when Booth's body was examined, and we know he had his camera equipment and an assistant (probably O'Sullivan) with him. What has never been found is the photo (or photos) of Booth's corpse which Gardner is said to have taken. Some, like Mr. Elliott, believe Gardner took no photo of Booth's body, basing this theory on an off-hand remark by Gardner's son, Lawrence, published many years after the fact. The Harper's Weekly engraving you refer to shows wooden decking instead of the one-inch thick iron plates which actually covered the monitor's deck, a mistake which should have been immediately obvious to the artist, engraver or editors of Harper's. Those who believe that no photo was taken cite this as evidence that the engraving is not based on Gardner's photograph. Some, however, believe it is based on an actual photograph and that the man with the beard is Gardner himself. In the near future, I'll be posting opposing views on the matter, along with my reasons for not taking seriously the remarks of Gardner's son.

Incidentally, the engraving of the autopsy found on page 121 of "Twenty Days" shows the iron-plated deck but no Gardner look-alike; it originally appeared on page 540 of Lafayette Baker's "History of the United States Secret Service" published in 1867.

(03-11-2014 12:25 PM)nomann Wrote:  May 13, 1865 harper's Weekley picture of autopsy of Booth's Body at
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundati...-death.htm

http://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln83.html

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/do...38/?no-ist
https://awesometalks.wordpress.com/categ...psy-photo/
Note -if the man at right is Alexander gardner-who could have taken the missing photograph? Was it Sullivan?

A Frank Leslie version appears on page 182 of Kunhardt's "Twenty Days"

Hi Nomann,

The autopsy engraving you referenced in Twenty Days was never printed in Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper as far as I know. Anthony Pitch said it came from Leslie's in his book, "They Have Killed Papa Dead" but I've never been able to track it down. It has appeared in at least two other books besides Twenty Days.

Alexander Gardner never took a photograph of John Wilkes Booth and the mystery of the supposed photograph was put to rest by his son Lawrence in 1891. Lawrence worked as an assistant with his father and was present on the day of Booth's examination aboard the Montauk. Lawrence Gardner could not have been more clear when he stated, "Did we take a picture? No.". These weren't offhand remarks or an inference captured by a reporter. This was a first-person, direct quote from Gardner and was followed by a logical explanation.

Alexander Gardner was tasked to take a photo of Booth's body but Maj. Thomas Eckert rescinded the order when it was evident Booth's day-old, "rapidly changing" corpse bore little resemblance to the handsome actor. Booth had shaved off his signature mustache and a 10 day growth of beard covered his face. Additionally, Booth's face had become freckled and discolored due to livor mortis.

On another note, photographer Timothy O'Sullivan's name has been linked to Alexander Gardner (erroneously) as assisting him with the conspirators' Mug Shot photo sessions as well as the execution photos.

There is no proof or eyewitness accounts mentioning O'Sullivan being present during any of those sessions and was a falsehood started by author and Lincoln aficionado Osborn Oldroyd. Oldroyd was no stranger to making things up to match his research. -- See Inside The Walls Vol. 1 (Who Gave The Signal ?)

Nearly a hundred years later, Mark Katz, in his book Witness to an Era, repeated Oldroyd's claims and went a step further by embellishing events even more - placing O'Sullivan at Gardner's side on July 7, 1865.

Any efforts to discredit Lawrence Gardner as a credible and/or reliable source will be futile. I'm sure folks will try, because Gardner's statement doesn't fit with their long-held beliefs of how events played out on April 27, 1865.

Until someone finds concrete evidence to refute Lawrence Gardner or produces the photograph itself, its safe to say the photo was never taken.

I have had one thought running through my mind ever since John first discussed his Lawrence Gardner find with me. Was the photographing of Booth's body scheduled before or after the corpse was identified by numerous people? If afterwards, there would be no need for a photo - they had the positive IDs necessary to confirm that it was Booth. And, things like broken bones, a scar on the neck (identified by the doctor who treated it), tattooed initials, and a stick pin engraved to Booth would seem better identifiers than a photo.

Hi Laurie, the photography was definitely scheduled BEFORE the autopsy and most likely around the same time as the identifying process. You are absolutely correct though, there were definitely better ways of identifying the body other than comparing photos to the face:

- The scar on the neck
- Dental methods
- Booth's tattoo on his left arm/wrist/hand...location du jour.
- David Herold's positive identification of Booth

---

Laurie, as you previously mentioned, there was another eyewitness account that surfaced recently under the pen name "Nemo". While that account has some interesting observations, it was mostly fiction. The writer recalled that Dr. Mudd and a Maryland farmer were among the prisoners aboard the monitors Mahopac and Saugus. You read that right, "Mahopac". Nemo even provides a disclaimer that the events were "mostly true".

I'd like to read Nemo's imagined account of what would have happened had Lincoln turned around to see Booth in the doorway that tragic night. Many believe Booth would have had a particularly nasty fight on his hands with the old Rail Splitter. Perhaps it would look something like this:

(03-12-2014 02:03 AM)John E. Wrote:  Lawrence worked as an assistant with his father and was present on the day of Booth's examination aboard the Montauk. Lawrence Gardner could not have been more clear when he stated, "Did we take a picture? No.". These weren't offhand remarks or an inference captured by a reporter. This was a first-person, direct quote from Gardner and was followed by a logical explanation.

Alexander Gardner was tasked to take a photo of Booth's body but Maj. Thomas Eckert rescinded the order when it was evident Booth's day-old, "rapidly changing" corpse bore little resemblance to the handsome actor. Booth had shaved off his signature mustache and a 10 day growth of beard covered his face. Additionally, Booth's face had become freckled and discolored due to livor mortis.

Hi John,

This may have been covered before but is it possible that Lawrence Gardner was lying to cover up the fact that a photo was actually taken?
That was the story and he was sticking to it.

Also, Seaton Munroe, who was a witness for the military commission trying to establish Booth's identity which was being held below deck, wrote, "The handsome countenance was unmarred by the agony of his lingering death..."

So what did Booth look like on the Montauk anyway? Could his body have changed that quickly?

LOVE the comic!!

(03-12-2014 10:09 AM)Linda Anderson Wrote:  Hi John,

This may have been covered before but is it possible that Lawrence Gardner was lying to cover up the fact that a photo was actually taken?
That was the story and he was sticking to it.

Also, Seaton Munroe, who was a witness for the military commission trying to establish Booth's identity which was being held below deck, wrote, "The handsome countenance was unmarred by the agony of his lingering death..."

So what did Booth look like on the Montauk anyway? Could his body have changed that quickly?

Hi Linda:

First of all, aside from his own words, there isn't a shred of evidence showing that Lawrence Gardner ever set foot aboard the Montauk, nor is there any evidence proving that Tim O'Sullivan was not Gardner's assistant, both on the Montauk and at the execution. Your theory about Lawrence Gardner's claim is a valid one. Suppose young Gardner was merely repeating what his father told him when he came home without the anticipated photo of Booth, a "cover story" necessary under the stipulations agreed to when Gardner was given the photo assignment. Whether Gardner ever told his son the true story is unknown, but when he spoke to the reporter 26 years later, Lawrence stuck to the story he'd been told, simply inserting himself into the action to add authority to his statements. I'll be discussing this in greater detail later.

Various credible witnesses have stated that Booth's appearance had altered considerably in the 24-plus hours since his death, likely due to normal postmortem changes, exacerbated by his body being bounced around in a wagon for miles over country roads. Add to that the effects of nearly two weeks of living rough, probably in constant pain from his leg fracture. Dr. May's well-documented and oft-quoted description of the way Booth's face appeared, although a bit over-dramatic, is an example.

(03-12-2014 10:09 AM)Linda Anderson Wrote:  Hi John,

This may have been covered before but is it possible that Lawrence Gardner was lying to cover up the fact that a photo was actually taken?
That was the story and he was sticking to it.

Also, Seaton Munroe, who was a witness for the military commission trying to establish Booth's identity which was being held below deck, wrote, "The handsome countenance was unmarred by the agony of his lingering death..."

So what did Booth look like on the Montauk anyway? Could his body have changed that quickly?

Hi Linda, its always possible that Lawrence Gardner was lying but why would he? The purpose of the Evening Star article had nothing to
do with whether Booth's photo was taken or not. Lawrence just wanted to state unequivocally that the man aboard the ship was Booth and that he was definitely dead.

The other information he volunteered (Booth's tattoo, meeting him at Grover's on the day of the assassination) was inconsequential at the time but very important to researchers.

There is a myth about Stanton and his attitude toward photographs being taken or secreted in some fashion. Hopefully I will be able to cover that in my presentation.

As for what Booth looked like the day of the autopsy, Seaton Munroe's description has always been a bit of a mystery to me. It contradicts what most people had to say about it. The only thing I can offer is speculation. Perhaps by "countenance", he was referring to Booth's high cheek bones and / or bone structure.

Livor mortis or lividity is when blood collects in the body and starts to pool because of lack of circulation. When Booth was moved from Virginia to Washington DC, he was most likely laying face-down which may have caused a discoloration and freckling.

Here is a description from a NY Times reporter who had a brief view of the body:

From a brief look upon the body, I find that BOOTH had cut off his moustache apparently with scissors, trimmed his hair, and allowed his beard to grow, thus altering his appearance materially. The lower part of his face is discolored by extravagation of blood. The ball which produced his death entered the base of the skull, in a position very similar to that which the fatal ball entered into the skull of President LINCOLN.

Linda - When John first told me about Lawrence Gardner's denial of the photograph, my first thought was that Lawrence was covering up for the photo being missing. Then I asked myself why he would need to do that.

The photo would have been overshadowed by the physical identifications that were made by so many others, by the re-examination -- with dental records -- upon exhumation of Booth in 1869, and Eisenschmil and his villainous Stanton theories and the escape theory had not appeared on the assassination story line as yet. Why would Lawrence Gardner need to lie?

As far as Booth's body changing drastically, I got shot down years ago when I questioned how it could have changed so much in one day's time! The first to pull the trigger on me was Mike Kauffman, who filled me in on livor mortis causing freckling at the body's lowest point (Booth was wrapped in the blanket and placed face down in the wagon heading to the John S. Ide). I personally knew that exposure to sunlight brings out the red highlights in someone's dark hair.

Then the final "bullet" was aimed at me by Bill Richter, who took the time to consult the weather in Caroline County, Virginia, and up the Potomac River to D.C. at the time of the body's transport. Once he got that information, he consulted a medical examiner with the State of Arizona for his opinion on deterioration of a human body under those conditions. I have shut my mouth from that point on. I think Seaton Munroe misspoke - or delivered the flowery, sentimental statements that Victorian culture expected.

As I said before, I would love to have the "missing" photo "found" as much as anyone. After 150 years of searching (by some very reputable historians), however, maybe it's time to accept Lawrence Gardner's more reasonable statement -- you can't find something that never existed in the first place.

One more question: The man that people take to be Alexander Gardner in the engraving also reminds me of Allen Pinkerton. Does anyone know if the PI was in on the identification process?

John - Love the Nemo cartoon. The originator of that must have been a fan of Jules Verne to assign himself the pen name of Nemo - which I believe translates to "No Man."

Thanks, John. It seems to me that Lawrence Gardner was either telling the truth or lying about the photo not being taken. The third possibility is that his memory was faulty but I don't think that was the case regarding the autopsy photo.

Isn't it strange, Cliff, how so many people can see the same thing but everyone remembers it differently?

(03-12-2014 12:30 PM)Cliff Roberts Wrote:  Hi Linda:

First of all, aside from his own words, there isn't a shred of evidence showing that Lawrence Gardner ever set foot aboard the Montauk, nor is there any evidence proving that Tim O'Sullivan was not Gardner's assistant, both on the Montauk and at the execution.

So...your theory is that Lawrence was just lying. While his name can't be found on the War Department document allowing civilians on board the Montauk, his description of: multiple mug shot sessions, having to be ferried from the pier to the Montauk, description of Booth's body and photographing Herold are all accurate. Gardner's memory was fantastic - 26 years after the event.

Linda, Cliff Roberts wrote 3 parts of a 4 part series, detailing how the James Wardell letter to Oldroyd (a document Cliff mistakenly believed was genuine) was most likely a fake. But in his words, the fake letter "deserved to be treated with respect" because it was good enough to fool him.

Cliff Roberts also claimed to have found the Lawrence Gardner article himself years ago but didn't bring it to light because he thought Lawrence was lying then too. If true, the kids nowadays call that an Epic Fail. -- Let it be known that aside from his own words, there isn't a shred of evidence showing that Roberts or John Watson ever found the article.

(03-12-2014 01:11 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Linda - When John first told me about Lawrence Gardner's denial of the photograph, my first thought was that Lawrence was covering up for the photo being missing. Then I asked myself why he would need to do that.

The photo would have been overshadowed by the physical identifications that were made by so many others, by the re-examination -- with dental records -- upon exhumation of Booth in 1869, and Eisenschmil and his villainous Stanton theories and the escape theory had not appeared on the assassination story line as yet. Why would Lawrence Gardner need to lie?

As far as Booth's body changing drastically, I got shot down years ago when I questioned how it could have changed so much in one day's time! The first to pull the trigger on me was Mike Kauffman, who filled me in on liver mortis causing freckling at the body's lowest point (Booth was wrapped in the blanket and placed face down in the wagon heading to the John S. Ide). I personally knew that exposure to sunlight brings out the red highlights in someone's dark hair.

Then the final "bullet" was aimed at me by Bill Richter, who took the time to consult the weather in Caroline County, Virginia, and up the Potomac River to D.C. at the time of the body's transport. Once he got that information, he consulted a medical examiner with the State of Arizona for his opinion on deterioration of a human body under those conditions. I have shut my mouth from that point on. I think Seaton Munroe misspoke - or delivered the flowery, sentimental statements that Victorian culture expected.

As I said before, I would love to have the "missing" photo "found" as much as anyone. After 150 years of searching (by some very reputable historians), however, maybe it's time to accept Lawrence Gardner's more reasonable statement -- you can't find something that never existed in the first place.

One more question: The man that people take to be Alexander Gardner in the engraving also reminds me of Allen Pinkerton. Does anyone know if the PI was in on the identification process?

John - Love the Nemo cartoon. The originator of that must have been a fan of Jules Verne to assign himself the pen name of Nemo - which I believe translates to "No Man."

Laurie, I think you are right about the flowery statements expected of the Victorians and Seaton Munroe was most likely exaggerating a little (or a lot).

Just in case the following item gets brought up later on in this thread, let me address it now. Recently, a newspaper article from 1893 detailing the discovery of a treasure trove of old glass plate negatives by J. Porter - a former Gardner employee, was offered as "A possible solution to the mystery of: what happened to the negative of the post-mortem exam".

Because Lawrence Gardner served as his father's assistant and was familiar with the photos his father took, he was asked by a newspaper to comment on whether any of the negatives may have belonged to Alexander.

Lawrence had this to say (unless he was lying):

"Regarding the negative of J. Wilkes Booth, I will say that any negative Mr. Porter has is a copy, for Mr. Booth NEVER HAD A PICTURE TAKEN IN THIS CITY. There are two pictures of Booth, one in a sitting posture and the other standing. Both are copies of negatives taken in Baltimore. One is on exhibition in Hancock's saloon, and the other, which may be the one discovered by Mr. Porter, was copied by my father."

I find the renewed interest in the Booth autopsy photo - by certain folks in the research community- more than coincidental as my presentation at the Surratt Conference approaches. This is terrific! I only have about an hour to speak and this forum has allowed me to address these opposing arguments in more detail.

Thanks to Roger Norton for this fantastic site.