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.



This one is my favorite. I refer to it as "JWB on drugs." I mean, really, look at those eyes!


Enjoy!

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

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.

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.

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.

That sums it up nicely, Laurie.

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.

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. 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.

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.

(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.

Thank you, Blaine. It's great to have back-up brains when one's own starts to fail.

(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.

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.

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

An article was written in the Philadelphia Inquirer in April of 2019 discussing facial comparison of St. Helens and Booth. I referenced this in a post back in August. Facial recognition software was used and the article reported that the results were very suggestive that the two were one and the same. The article shows two photographs side by side that they claim show the similarities between the two. However, I have never personally believed that Booth escaped, and this article did not bolster belief of the contrary. An examination of the two photos shows many differences between the two faces, especially in areas that don't really change drastically with age. The brow structures are strikingly different, as well as the shape of the chin and nose. The shape of the eyes and that of the lower lip are also markedly different. I don't know what other images were consulted, but the ones shown in the article are so different that the conclusion cannot be reached (in my estimation) that they are of the same man. We'll see what discussion ensues!

Interesting. I imagine that it would be quite difficult to analyze two photos from the 19th century with 21st century technology and be certain of anything. Even the DNA taken from the skeleton of King Richard lll is suspect. I was reading an article about that today.
Admittedly there is a resemblance between Booth and St. Helen/ George but throw a moustache on a photo of any slim, well-dressed dandy from the 19th century and presto! You have JWB.