Interesting theory Thomas. Could this could be a reason why no photo was taken of the body?

Unfortunately, none of the witnesses to Booth's capture, death or autopsy ever indicated the body received burns.

(10-13-2015 04:19 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Interesting theory Thomas. Could this could be a reason why no photo was taken of the body?

Unfortunately, none of the witnesses to Booth's capture, death or autopsy ever indicated the body received burns.

Like the Jeremiah Gurney picture, a picture was taken but Stanton ordered the negative plate destroyed. The Gurney picture was discovered by Dr. Ron Rietveld in 1952 but the Booth picture has not been discovered to this day.

(10-13-2015 03:51 PM)Thomas Kearney Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 05:43 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 05:19 PM)Thomas Kearney Wrote:  

(10-11-2015 06:36 PM)Maykeith Wrote:  A question for the group. I just finished reading Lincoln's Assassins by Chamblee. He makes the point that Booth's secret fiancé Lucy Hale was not interrogated after the murder or called to testify at the trial. Is this true? If so, anyone know why? Was the relationship that secret? It seems like she could have unique insight.

Maybe it was too "political" to talk to her....soil the family name......

At the time of the assassination, Lucy was in a pickle. Her father had recently been promoted to ambassador of Spain and was to move at the end of the month. When her family learned word of the assassination, she couldn't believe that John Wilkes Booth was the assassin. When Senator Hale heard this, he attempted to whisk her away from her beloved Wilkes but failed. It is rumored that Lucy went to visit Booth's badly burnt body on the ironclad and had to be dragged out of the room after throwing herself on his body. According to the Richmond papers, Lucy was not called to testify because Stanton feared that her relationship with Booth would increase the reputations of the conspirators, and she had moved to Spain by the time the trial started.

Thomas - what is your source for that quote? I have never read about "Booth's badly burned body." Some ill-informed people have stated that Booth burned to death in the barn, but I have never seen reference to him being badly burned when dragged out alive from the barn.

Laurie,

Why are you bringing me down man? I told my mother my theory and she agreed. Ah but what did she agree on? Here is my theory:

According to the Confederate States Almanac, the evening of April 25th was pleasant weather, with sunset at 6:36 PM. But as for being inside the barn, the fire made it hundreds of degrees inside, so it was basically like being in an oven. So it is possible that Booth got at least first or second degree burns. His dentist and dermatologist were called on to the Montauk to make sure it was him, probably because of the potential burns. I am posting a link to the Almanac and an article about the different burn types on Healthline (try not to gag while reading the burn articles, this could be a breakthrough in the death of John Wilkes Booth).

https://ia600408.us.archive.org/8/items/...shm_bw.pdf

http://www.healthline.com/health/burns#Second-Degree4

http://www.healthline.com/health/burns#First-Degree3

Thomas - I am not trying to bring you down. I am trying to convince you to be a good historian. You are quite welcome to have your theories (lord knows there are enough of those going around anyhow, so what is one more - right?). Now I challenge you to prove your theories!

You have already committed one error by not checking the facts as to when Booth and Herold were surrounded in that barn. It was not in the early evening of April 25; it was approximately 4 o'clock in the morning of April 26.

Next, have you ever seen how large a tobacco barn is? With the fire being started by the troops in "kindling" at the base of the walls, it would take some time for it to spread, under the best of circumstances, to Booth - who had to be hobbling out of its path.

No matter whom you want to credit as firing the bullet that went through his neck, as soon as it was obvious that he was down, his rescuers were in and pulling him outside. No mention of having to beat flames off of him; clothes still intact; absolutely no mention of any burns while he lay dying for the next hour or more. No mention of burns during his autopsy. I believe that, to sustain burns such as you are imagining, Mr. Booth would have had some of the symptoms of severe burn trauma.

On the monitor, Dr. May identified "the mark of the scalpel" that he had made on Booth's neck at a previous time. However, the dental identifications were not done until 1869, when the body was released to the Booth family.

You definitely have a love of history and good instincts. Now please channel them in the right direction instead of trying to confuse the issues even more. You must have had a history teacher somewhere along the line who told you basically the same thing.

(10-13-2015 05:06 PM)Thomas Kearney Wrote:  Like the Jeremiah Gurney picture, a picture was taken but Stanton ordered the negative plate destroyed.

(10-13-2015 05:06 PM)Thomas Kearney Wrote:  but the Booth picture has not been discovered to this day.

Thomas, regarding the debate of whether or not an autopsy photo was taken please see the thread here.

This is just my opinion, but who’s to say Lucy Hale was NOT questioned?

Stanton was so determined to crack the case, I can’t imagine he’d let her off without some sort of investigation, especially after Junius Booth spilled the beans to reporters in Cincinnati a few days after the assassination, telling them all about his brother's "engagement" to the younger daughter of Senator Hale. I don't think Lucy was hauled into jail and interrogated like so many others, but I believe she might have been questioned discreetly, in private, by one of Stanton’s men. Finding that she could add nothing to the investigation, they just kept her statement “off the record” and never included it in any evidence files. Also, Mr. Hale didn’t hurry Lucy off to Spain before anyone could talk to her. The family didn’t sail until June 21st, just as the Defense was giving their case for O'Laughlen and Arnold.

As to the story of the “veiled lady” aboard the ironclad who wept over Booth’s body, I’ve always felt that was just a bogus story, made up to sell more newspapers. Has anyone on the forum found any reliable evidence it really happened? And even if there was such a lady, I doubt it was Lucy. New Hampshire and Boston newspapers reported that John P. Hale made a speech at a memorial service held in Dover, NH on the day of President Lincoln’s funeral, April 19. I would assume if Hale was in New Hampshire, he had his wife and daughters with him there. Would he have allowed Lucy to travel back to the Washington area eight days later so she could view the remains of the President’s killer? Seems improbable to me. What’s more, Hale was not popular with most of the men in Lincoln’s cabinet, and his relationship with the Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Welles, was particularly rancorous. Those two kept up a public (and very childish) feud throughout the war. If somebody wanted permission to get on a heavily guarded government vessel, wouldn’t that have to be cleared through the Navy Department? Hale certainly couldn’t have gotten any favors from that quarter.

Lafayette Baker reported that a woman came aboard the Montauk and cut off a lock of Booth's hair. He (Baker) then forcibly took it away from her (after she refused to give it up). Is this lady the same person as the "veiled lady?"

(10-14-2015 08:25 PM)Sally Wrote:  This is just my opinion, but who’s to say Lucy Hale was NOT questioned?

Stanton was so determined to crack the case, I can’t imagine he’d let her off without some sort of investigation, especially after Junius Booth spilled the beans to reporters in Cincinnati a few days after the assassination, telling them all about his brother's "engagement" to the younger daughter of Senator Hale. I don't think Lucy was hauled into jail and interrogated like so many others, but I believe she might have been questioned discreetly, in private, by one of Stanton’s men. Finding that she could add nothing to the investigation, they just kept her statement “off the record” and never included it in any evidence files. Also, Mr. Hale didn’t hurry Lucy off to Spain before anyone could talk to her. The family didn’t sail until June 21st, just as the Defense was giving their case for O'Laughlen and Arnold.

As to the story of the “veiled lady” aboard the ironclad who wept over Booth’s body, I’ve always felt that was just a bogus story, made up to sell more newspapers. Has anyone on the forum found any reliable evidence it really happened? And even if there was such a lady, I doubt it was Lucy. New Hampshire and Boston newspapers reported that John P. Hale made a speech at a memorial service held in Dover, NH on the day of President Lincoln’s funeral, April 19. I would assume if Hale was in New Hampshire, he had his wife and daughters with him there. Would he have allowed Lucy to travel back to the Washington area eight days later so she could view the remains of the President’s killer? Seems improbable to me. What’s more, Hale was not popular with most of the men in Lincoln’s cabinet, and his relationship with the Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Welles, was particularly rancorous. Those two kept up a public (and very childish) feud throughout the war. If somebody wanted permission to get on a heavily guarded government vessel, wouldn’t that have to be cleared through the Navy Department? Hale certainly couldn’t have gotten any favors from that quarter.

Great points, Sally. It sounds like you know quite a bit about the Hales and Lucy's ties to Booth.

Your last point about having permission to get on the Montauk is well-taken. Some time ago, John Elliott posted about the steps taken to get Alexander Gardner on board for photographs. If I had been Sen. & Mrs. Hale, I would have locked Lucy in her room and let her cry her heart out (or throw a screaming tantrum) before I would allow her anywhere near that body. Frankly, I would have already been disgusted with her if the stories are true that she "traveled" with Booth. Liberated daughters were not tolerated in the 1860s.

(10-15-2015 09:04 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 08:25 PM)Sally Wrote:  This is just my opinion, but who’s to say Lucy Hale was NOT questioned?

Stanton was so determined to crack the case, I can’t imagine he’d let her off without some sort of investigation, especially after Junius Booth spilled the beans to reporters in Cincinnati a few days after the assassination, telling them all about his brother's "engagement" to the younger daughter of Senator Hale. I don't think Lucy was hauled into jail and interrogated like so many others, but I believe she might have been questioned discreetly, in private, by one of Stanton’s men. Finding that she could add nothing to the investigation, they just kept her statement “off the record” and never included it in any evidence files. Also, Mr. Hale didn’t hurry Lucy off to Spain before anyone could talk to her. The family didn’t sail until June 21st, just as the Defense was giving their case for O'Laughlen and Arnold.

As to the story of the “veiled lady” aboard the ironclad who wept over Booth’s body, I’ve always felt that was just a bogus story, made up to sell more newspapers. Has anyone on the forum found any reliable evidence it really happened? And even if there was such a lady, I doubt it was Lucy. New Hampshire and Boston newspapers reported that John P. Hale made a speech at a memorial service held in Dover, NH on the day of President Lincoln’s funeral, April 19. I would assume if Hale was in New Hampshire, he had his wife and daughters with him there. Would he have allowed Lucy to travel back to the Washington area eight days later so she could view the remains of the President’s killer? Seems improbable to me. What’s more, Hale was not popular with most of the men in Lincoln’s cabinet, and his relationship with the Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Welles, was particularly rancorous. Those two kept up a public (and very childish) feud throughout the war. If somebody wanted permission to get on a heavily guarded government vessel, wouldn’t that have to be cleared through the Navy Department? Hale certainly couldn’t have gotten any favors from that quarter.

Great points, Sally. It sounds like you know quite a bit about the Hales and Lucy's ties to Booth.

Your last point about having permission to get on the Montauk is well-taken. Some time ago, John Elliott posted about the steps taken to get Alexander Gardner on board for photographs. If I had been Sen. & Mrs. Hale, I would have locked Lucy in her room and let her cry her heart out (or throw a screaming tantrum) before I would allow her anywhere near that body. Frankly, I would have already been disgusted with her if the stories are true that she "traveled" with Booth. Liberated daughters were not tolerated in the 1860s.

Is there any solid evidence that she did travel with Booth? Nothing in Terry Alford's book that I recall seemed to support this, and nothing in the (admittedly little) I've read about her gives me the impression that she was unconventional enough to risk her reputation in this manner.

We're talking about Booth's fiance, not the actress from Pretty Little Liars, right?

(10-15-2015 01:05 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 09:04 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 08:25 PM)Sally Wrote:  This is just my opinion, but who’s to say Lucy Hale was NOT questioned?

Stanton was so determined to crack the case, I can’t imagine he’d let her off without some sort of investigation, especially after Junius Booth spilled the beans to reporters in Cincinnati a few days after the assassination, telling them all about his brother's "engagement" to the younger daughter of Senator Hale. I don't think Lucy was hauled into jail and interrogated like so many others, but I believe she might have been questioned discreetly, in private, by one of Stanton’s men. Finding that she could add nothing to the investigation, they just kept her statement “off the record” and never included it in any evidence files. Also, Mr. Hale didn’t hurry Lucy off to Spain before anyone could talk to her. The family didn’t sail until June 21st, just as the Defense was giving their case for O'Laughlen and Arnold.

As to the story of the “veiled lady” aboard the ironclad who wept over Booth’s body, I’ve always felt that was just a bogus story, made up to sell more newspapers. Has anyone on the forum found any reliable evidence it really happened? And even if there was such a lady, I doubt it was Lucy. New Hampshire and Boston newspapers reported that John P. Hale made a speech at a memorial service held in Dover, NH on the day of President Lincoln’s funeral, April 19. I would assume if Hale was in New Hampshire, he had his wife and daughters with him there. Would he have allowed Lucy to travel back to the Washington area eight days later so she could view the remains of the President’s killer? Seems improbable to me. What’s more, Hale was not popular with most of the men in Lincoln’s cabinet, and his relationship with the Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Welles, was particularly rancorous. Those two kept up a public (and very childish) feud throughout the war. If somebody wanted permission to get on a heavily guarded government vessel, wouldn’t that have to be cleared through the Navy Department? Hale certainly couldn’t have gotten any favors from that quarter.

Great points, Sally. It sounds like you know quite a bit about the Hales and Lucy's ties to Booth.

Your last point about having permission to get on the Montauk is well-taken. Some time ago, John Elliott posted about the steps taken to get Alexander Gardner on board for photographs. If I had been Sen. & Mrs. Hale, I would have locked Lucy in her room and let her cry her heart out (or throw a screaming tantrum) before I would allow her anywhere near that body. Frankly, I would have already been disgusted with her if the stories are true that she "traveled" with Booth. Liberated daughters were not tolerated in the 1860s.

Is there any solid evidence that she did travel with Booth? Nothing in Terry Alford's book that I recall seemed to support this, and nothing in the (admittedly little) I've read about her gives me the impression that she was unconventional enough to risk her reputation in this manner.

I have often questioned this also, Susan - and never gotten a definitive answer. The gentlemen scholars always want to point to Booth registering "with lady" at hotels and just seem to assume that it was Lucy. Maybe I've missed something, but that would definitely have made Lucy a "loose woman." If word got around (and so far no evidence that it did), it would have cut her off completely from proper society and snubbed by eligible gentlemen.

(10-15-2015 01:47 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I have often questioned this also, Susan - and never gotten a definitive answer. The gentlemen scholars always want to point to Booth registering "with lady" at hotels and just seem to assume that it was Lucy. Maybe I've missed something, but that would definitely have made Lucy a "loose woman." If word got around (and so far no evidence that it did), it would have cut her off completely from proper society and snubbed by eligible gentlemen.

Rather than make the anticipated reply..."that was no lady, that was my wife", I had to look hard for this....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o3m1FwhusY

(10-15-2015 09:04 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Great points, Sally. It sounds like you know quite a bit about the Hales and Lucy's ties to Booth.

Your last point about having permission to get on the Montauk is well-taken. Some time ago, John Elliott posted about the steps taken to get Alexander Gardner on board for photographs. If I had been Sen. & Mrs. Hale, I would have locked Lucy in her room and let her cry her heart out (or throw a screaming tantrum) before I would allow her anywhere near that body. Frankly, I would have already been disgusted with her if the stories are true that she "traveled" with Booth. Liberated daughters were not tolerated in the 1860s.

Yes, Laurie, I have done quite a lot of amateur research on Lucy and her family. I’m strongly drawn to the Hales, although I’m not sure why. It’s not because Lucy seemed like a particularly kindly or sweet-natured woman. (There are indications she was pretty hard-edged, at least later in her life.) But neither do I believe she exhibited the lax morals so often attributed to her by 21st century authors. In most cases, I don’t think the portrayals of her as “Loose Lucy” are intentionally malicious—the writers are just applying the standards of modern society to her situation. For example, in “American Brutus”, Michael Kauffman cites a quote from Booth’s actor friend, John McCullough, wherein McCullough claims Lucy and her sister, Lizzie, would meet up with him and Booth in Baltimore for trysts. I’m wondering if his quote was taken out of context or, perhaps, misinterpreted? It’s certainly possible that Lucy and Lizzie took the train to Baltimore once or twice during the winter of 1865 to meet up with the two actors. But does that necessarily mean they had a foursome in a suite in Barnum’s Hotel? I’ve no doubt Booth and McCullough met up with many other willing pairs of “sisters” during their careers, but I sincerely doubt that two young ladies, raised in a temperate, Unitarian household, would get up to that sort of thing in 1865. In any case, McCullough may not be the most reliable source in this instance. He was eventually institutionalized with general paresis—a psychotic disorder caused by syphilis.

I also share Laurie’s doubts that Lucy was Booth’s “and lady” at the Aquidneck House Hotel in Newport on April 3. It’s seems more likely she was one of his actress acquaintances. Didn’t he go directly from Newport to Boston, where he stopped at a theater to see Edwin? Maybe his “lady” was part of that theater company and he escorted her back? It’s just a thought.

It’s my (useless) opinion that Lucy Hale was a typical young lady of her class and time, but one who possessed (in the words of John Hay) an “indefinable fascination” for men. Her worst fault may have been vanity—she was aware of her effect on males and, like so many other belles and coquettes of her day, she used it to her advantage. She was neither saint nor sinner. Unfortunately, she just happened to capture the wrong man in her net. And now her name (and, in many cases, her reputation) live on in infamy.

Sorry to run on like this. As I said at the beginning of this post, I have a keen interest in the Hale family history. I get carried away.

With my apologies to Sally & Susan.....

Is this ironic or what? (the artist, the song title and the lyrics)
This is for you Thomas Kearney

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

The quotation by McCullough cited by Kaufman is taken from an article by George Alfred Townsend in the July 30, 1882, San Francisco Chronicle. McCullough doesn't name the two ladies in question but does say they were well-connected. I suppose it's possible that they were Lucy and her sister, but I still have my doubts.

I am just speculating here.

Long ago Jenny posted part of an interview with Harry Hawk. Hawk said:

"I thought perhaps he (John Wilkes Booth) meant to kill me and fled to my dressing room, which was up a pair of stairs in the wings. The reason I thought he was after me was because he was infatuated with a woman named Ella Turner, whom a wealthy friend of mine named Wilson had met and became enamored of. Finding that she was making a dupe of him, I told him of her relationship with Booth and so incurred her displeasure. I feared she had told Booth some story about me and that he had taken some cranky notion to avenge her publically."

So is there any chance that the lady with Booth at the Aquidneck House was Ella Starr Turner? Booth checked in as "J W Booth & Lady." Let's turn around who was being "protected" here - I think we have assumed it was the lady. But maybe it was Booth himself, not the lady, who was being "protected." Ella was a prostitute, and maybe Booth didn't want it known/talked about (especially by Lucy Hale) that he was checking into a hotel with a girl of that occupation?

Am I too far out here?