I have a problem with the refusal to allow an identification of John Wilkes Booth's body.
There is no problem with who shot Lincoln, but there is some question with the identification of the corpse of the person who was said to have shot Lincoln.
The trouble began when the corpse first reached Washington in the custody of the Military. Apparently, there was no embalming of the corpse, so there were problems making an unquestionable identification. A Doctor was called in and because he had treated Booth, he said "Yep! that's him", but others who "knew" Booth - were not questioned.
The body was then interred. (still no record of embalming). As time went on, the body was disinterred, and moved to a new burial site. At some point the body was exhumed and sent on a Circus Circuit. ( Of course this has never been confirmed, but we are led to believe - he was.), resulting in another burial.
I can easily understand why the family of John Wilkes Booth would question the true identity of the body being exploited, so they asked for an up-to-date, DNA confirmation, that this WAS Booth. The government said NO!. Are they afraid of the possible results? Are they sure of known, unacceptable, results?

(09-21-2018 08:28 PM)SSlater Wrote:  I have a problem with the refusal to allow an identification of John Wilkes Booth's body.
There is no problem with who shot Lincoln, but there is some question with the identification of the corpse of the person who was said to have shot Lincoln.
The trouble began when the corpse first reached Washington in the custody of the Military. Apparently, there was no embalming of the corpse, so there were problems making an unquestionable identification. A Doctor was called in and because he had treated Booth, he said "Yep! that's him", but others who "knew" Booth - were not questioned.
The body was then interred. (still no record of embalming). As time went on, the body was disinterred, and moved to a new burial site. At some point the body was exhumed and sent on a Circus Circuit. ( Of course this has never been confirmed, but we are led to believe - he was.), resulting in another burial.
I can easily understand why the family of John Wilkes Booth would question the true identity of the body being exploited, so they asked for an up-to-date, DNA confirmation, that this WAS Booth. The government said NO!. Are they afraid of the possible results? Are they sure of known, unacceptable, results?

John:

Identification of Booth was made repeatedly by David Herold in his April 27 statement to John A. Bingham. It was also made by various persons at the scene of death, at the autopsy aboard the Montauk, and upon re-burial of the body at Green Mount Cemetery in Baltimore, beyond any doubt whatsoever. See p. 385 of Decapitating the Union, Ch. 27, refs 30-33 for 11 references attesting to the same. As for the attempt that was made some years ago to exhume the body for further identification, the Court rejected the petition for the very good reason that no further identification was deemed to be necessary. The horse is dead.

John

In addition to what John F. mentioned...for the actual statements regarding the positive identification of JWB's remains aboard the Montauk by Charles M. Collins, Charles Dawson, Seaton Munroe, John Frederick May, and William Wallach Crowninshield, please see pp. 121-129 of The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln by Thomas R. Turner.

I have a problem with the fact that, for whatever reason(s), the family holds the identity in question, but are refused the right to have the testing done. They should be able to know for certain. The fact that the government, or any other entity says ‘no’ makes me suspicious as well. Personally, I feel that the body is probably Booth’s, but I wouldn’t bet my life on it. Having a background in law enforcement, I have personal knowledge of a few cases where we were told by the “higher ups” to close the cases and keep silent when we knew things weren’t right. This is on a much larger scale. These things DO happen, and I’m just saying that I can understand the family’s request and what I feel is their right to have the testing done. What I don’t understand is the government intervention in this.

I'm not aware of any government intervention against exhumation of Booth's body. According to the account here, the dispute was between some distant relations of Booth and Green-Mount Cemetery.

http://www.surrattmuseum.org/effort-to-e...ooths-body

(09-26-2018 06:16 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  I'm not aware of any government intervention against exhumation of Booth's body. According to the account here, the dispute was between some distant relations of Booth and Green-Mount Cemetery.

http://www.surrattmuseum.org/effort-to-e...ooths-body

Thanks for bringing that page on our website to attention, Susan, and thank you John Fazio for your clear statement of facts. I sat through the two days of the first case in Baltimore and listened to wonderful historical research and reasons why this ongoing theory that Booth escaped is ludicrous. You will never defeat those who are bent on proving conspiracy, however. There are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear.

Just a few points: The Booth relatives (who are pretty far out on a branch) were under constant poking and prodding evidently by the real instigators of this case -- one Nate Orlowek and the late-Dr. Arthur Ben Chitty, who referred to himself as a historiographer (look that one up). I first met Nate when he was quite young and quite proud of having his theory published in a national magazine - can't remember, but it might have been Rolling Stone. He later teamed up with Dr. Chitty.

Finally, they were able to convince the two Booth ladies and a young lawyer (Mark Zaid) to force a lawsuit into a Baltimore court. At that time, Mr. Zaid was known for only taking high-profile cases that would get him attention. I later heard that he was one who was involved in the cases surrounding the death of Princess Diana. Representing Green Mount was Frank Gorman, part of the cemetery's legal team, and he did a tremendous job. He's a quick learner and worked with the team of expert historians to make the facts known. Frank is a member of the Surratt Society, and I spoke with him about six months ago and found out that he is writing a book on the case. He's sure to be a speaker at a future Surratt conference.

We should recognize William Trimble who also spoke on behalf of the cemetery. He made very legitimate points as to why the cemetery opposed the exhumation, including the facts that the exact grave location is not recorded, the water problems in that area, the promise made to Mary Ann Booth, the fact that other remains were likely in the same grave and would be disturbed.

Mr. Trimble also pointed out that other families had loved ones in adjacent plots and that equipment could damage their areas -- not to mention the hordes of media and spectators that would descend upon that section once word got out that an exhumation would occur. Ironically, one of the nearby plots contains General Trimble of Civil War history and ancestor to Bill Trimble.

Other significant details about the body's identification in 1865 and 1869 should include references to the body being freckled. Go to your medical texts and you will find that this occurs in many fresh corpses, especially those that are not carefully transported. Blood and internal liquids flow to the lowest point and coagulate, causing the freckling effect. Remember that Booth was rolled into a blanket and thrown into the back of a rickety wagon to be taken to the ship. Who knows how this hated man was treated from that point on.

There was a photo comparison with the body done at Garrett's; the Booth family later provided dental records that showed Booth had a "plugged" tooth - something that few people could afford in those days; the body was identified by close to 100 people, according to Michael Kauffman, before being secretly buried at the Arsenal; and there's that noticeable scar on the body's neck that the doctor who performed the surgery identified. Finally, please consider the physical toll that being on the run, living outdoors, and nursing a broken leg would have on a person.

If you are still a doubter, I invite you to visit the James O. Hall Research Center at Surratt House Museum and view the documented files - including a very large notebook containing the 1991 Baltimore trial transcripts.

And John Stanton Slater, I think I'm shocked that you are still following the "Booth Escaped" theory.

I would like to thank everyone who has replied. Even though I have read it all before. (It's good to see it all in one place) . However, I am not convinced. I believe ALL that is said, but there has never been any PROOF offered. Does "a pimple on the neck of the corpse" convince you that it was really Booth? Based on that evidence, I would not have chipped-in to bury the man. A body buried for "5 years" isn't identifiable by sight, or by hear-say.
I do agree, that further identification will not accomplish anything, and that is part of my "wish" - that it had been handled differently.

---

(09-27-2018 01:03 AM)SSlater Wrote:  I would like to thank everyone who has replied. Even though I have read it all before. (It's good to see it all in one place) . However, I am not convinced. I believe ALL that is said, but there has never been any PROOF offered. Does "a pimple on the neck of the corpse" convince you that it was really Booth? Based on that evidence, I would not have chipped-in to bury the man. A body buried for "5 years" isn't identifiable by sight, or by hear-say.
I do agree, that further identification will not accomplish anything, and that is part of my "wish" - that it had been handled differently.

P.S. If the Identification had been done properly, there would have no room for the frauds that were perpetrated on the public.

(09-27-2018 01:03 AM)SSlater Wrote:  I would like to thank everyone who has replied. Even though I have read it all before. (It's good to see it all in one place) . However, I am not convinced. I believe ALL that is said, but there has never been any PROOF offered. Does "a pimple on the neck of the corpse" convince you that it was really Booth? Based on that evidence, I would not have chipped-in to bury the man. A body buried for "5 years" isn't identifiable by sight, or by hear-say.
I do agree, that further identification will not accomplish anything, and that is part of my "wish" - that it had been handled differently.

---

(09-27-2018 01:03 AM)SSlater Wrote:  I would like to thank everyone who has replied. Even though I have read it all before. (It's good to see it all in one place) . However, I am not convinced. I believe ALL that is said, but there has never been any PROOF offered. Does "a pimple on the neck of the corpse" convince you that it was really Booth? Based on that evidence, I would not have chipped-in to bury the man. A body buried for "5 years" isn't identifiable by sight, or by hear-say.
I do agree, that further identification will not accomplish anything, and that is part of my "wish" - that it had been handled differently.

P.S. If the Identification had been done properly, there would have no room for the frauds that were perpetrated on the public.

It was more than a pimple on the neck; it was quite a distinguishable scar. A plugged tooth in the skull of a man whose dental records are being used for identification is good evidence -- and a technique that is still used today. So many identifications made of the body while it was still intact on board the monitor stand for nothing? What would you have done differently, John? Let's get real folks.

Well who was that who died upstairs in the Garfield Furniture Store in Enid Oklahoma?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=233AjnUW...e=youtu.be

(09-27-2018 07:48 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(09-27-2018 01:03 AM)SSlater Wrote:  I would like to thank everyone who has replied. Even though I have read it all before. (It's good to see it all in one place) . However, I am not convinced. I believe ALL that is said, but there has never been any PROOF offered. Does "a pimple on the neck of the corpse" convince you that it was really Booth? Based on that evidence, I would not have chipped-in to bury the man. A body buried for "5 years" isn't identifiable by sight, or by hear-say.
I do agree, that further identification will not accomplish anything, and that is part of my "wish" - that it had been handled differently.

---

(09-27-2018 01:03 AM)SSlater Wrote:  I would like to thank everyone who has replied. Even though I have read it all before. (It's good to see it all in one place) . However, I am not convinced. I believe ALL that is said, but there has never been any PROOF offered. Does "a pimple on the neck of the corpse" convince you that it was really Booth? Based on that evidence, I would not have chipped-in to bury the man. A body buried for "5 years" isn't identifiable by sight, or by hear-say.
I do agree, that further identification will not accomplish anything, and that is part of my "wish" - that it had been handled differently.

P.S. If the Identification had been done properly, there would have no room for the frauds that were perpetrated on the public.

It was more than a pimple on the neck; it was quite a distinguishable scar. A plugged tooth in the skull of a man whose dental records are being used for identification is good evidence -- and a technique that is still used today. So many identifications made of the body while it was still intact on board the monitor stand for nothing? What would you have done differently, John? Let's get real folks.

Wasn't his tattoo noted as well?

(09-27-2018 06:54 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(09-27-2018 07:48 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(09-27-2018 01:03 AM)SSlater Wrote:  I would like to thank everyone who has replied. Even though I have read it all before. (It's good to see it all in one place) . However, I am not convinced. I believe ALL that is said, but there has never been any PROOF offered. Does "a pimple on the neck of the corpse" convince you that it was really Booth? Based on that evidence, I would not have chipped-in to bury the man. A body buried for "5 years" isn't identifiable by sight, or by hear-say.
I do agree, that further identification will not accomplish anything, and that is part of my "wish" - that it had been handled differently.

---

(09-27-2018 01:03 AM)SSlater Wrote:  I would like to thank everyone who has replied. Even though I have read it all before. (It's good to see it all in one place) . However, I am not convinced. I believe ALL that is said, but there has never been any PROOF offered. Does "a pimple on the neck of the corpse" convince you that it was really Booth? Based on that evidence, I would not have chipped-in to bury the man. A body buried for "5 years" isn't identifiable by sight, or by hear-say.
I do agree, that further identification will not accomplish anything, and that is part of my "wish" - that it had been handled differently.

P.S. If the Identification had been done properly, there would have no room for the frauds that were perpetrated on the public.

It was more than a pimple on the neck; it was quite a distinguishable scar. A plugged tooth in the skull of a man whose dental records are being used for identification is good evidence -- and a technique that is still used today. So many identifications made of the body while it was still intact on board the monitor stand for nothing? What would you have done differently, John? Let's get real folks.

Wasn't his tattoo noted as well?

Yes, indeed it was.

I was not very clear when I first wrote on this topic. So, back to the beginning. I do not question who was shot in the Garrett Barn and hauled to Washington. I question the handling of the remains, in the years following. He was first buried in the floor of the jail. Then moved to Green Mount. Then several Bodies - each said to be Booth, went on display across the country. Then the descendants of Booth got worried and asked that the body of Booth be identified.
The Green Wood people opposed, and it was said that they did not know where the body was buried, yet they said there were 3 infants buried above him.
I can see how the descendants got concerned. Green Mount claimed that they were responsible to leave the body in the grave that Booth's Mother buried him in.
This is difficult to write about, since it is not consistent with the their claims. Nor with the claims by two different men, that they were really Booth.
I can't accept the claim by Green Mount that "nothing will be gained by identifying the body in the grave, said to be Booth." All I get from that is they are afraid to run the tests, because THEY DON"T KNOW.
I also draw from this is - the location of Booth's grave, is a secret, - so that nobody else will try to steal the body

(09-27-2018 10:59 PM)SSlater Wrote:  I was not very clear when I first wrote on this topic. So, back to the beginning. I do not question who was shot in the Garrett Barn and hauled to Washington. I question the handling of the remains, in the years following. He was first buried in the floor of the jail. Then moved to Green Mount. Then several Bodies - each said to be Booth, went on display across the country. Then the descendants of Booth got worried and asked that the body of Booth be identified.
The Green Wood people opposed, and it was said that they did not know where the body was buried, yet they said there were 3 infants buried above him.
I can see how the descendants got concerned. Green Mount claimed that they were responsible to leave the body in the grave that Booth's Mother buried him in.
This is difficult to write about, since it is not consistent with the their claims. Nor with the claims by two different men, that they were really Booth.
I can't accept the claim by Green Mount that "nothing will be gained by identifying the body in the grave, said to be Booth." All I get from that is they are afraid to run the tests, because THEY DON"T KNOW.
I also draw from this is - the location of Booth's grave, is a secret, - so that nobody else will try to steal the body

I was not aware of more than one mummy traveling the carnival circuit with claims to being JWB. Is there another fake out there?

I believe there are records pertaining to the removal of the young Booths' bodies from the Bel Air farm to Green Mount at the request of Mrs. Booth. I also believe that her husband was reinterred there when she purchased the plot. If I'm not mistaken, Booth's body was "stored" for awhile awaiting all of this to go on.

I also believe hearing that there are legal ramifications regarding the disturbance of other graves in the process of disinterment. The protection of those young siblings' remains was an issue.

The claims of other gentlemen that they were JWB can only be attributed to their desire for publicity. I can assure you that their claims have been researched and discredited. Just as a sidebar: About 35 years ago, I was going through the rusty old ledgers from my family's general store and spotted an entry in the early-1860s for "John Boothe." I was ecstatic - until my mother told me that this particular "Boothe" family were African American and lived near T.B. when she was a child.

Back in the 1980s or early 90s, Joan Chaconas and Betty Ownsbey accepted an invitation to meet and "interview" John Wilkes Booth IV, who was a resident in a VA home near Virginia Beach. Betty can fill in blanks here, but all that they learned was that he appreciated females and that he wrote suggestive poetry - which he continued to send to the museum for awhile.

As far as the DNA testing, you do realize that several years ago parties were pushing to have Edwin Booth disturbed in his Massachusetts grave in order to get a sample from him for comparison? Talk about disturbing the dead!

One of the distant relatives who was pushed into taking it to court in the 1990s is now dead as is Dr. Chitty, one of those doing the pushing. A very well-known author in our field talked with other descendants after the case was denied in the Court of Appeals. They said that they had not cooperated with the push and that they were tired of the subject.

Very frankly, what good would come of any investigation at this point? It's 150+ years after the fact; if a government cover-up happened to be revealed, would Lincoln rise from the dead? Personally, I think it's time to let the documented evidence and the investigations done at the time close the "JWB escaped" legend.

(09-21-2018 08:28 PM)SSlater Wrote:  I have a problem with the refusal to allow an identification of John Wilkes Booth's body.
There is no problem with who shot Lincoln, but there is some question with the identification of the corpse of the person who was said to have shot Lincoln.
The trouble began when the corpse first reached Washington in the custody of the Military. Apparently, there was no embalming of the corpse, so there were problems making an unquestionable identification. A Doctor was called in and because he had treated Booth, he said "Yep! that's him", but others who "knew" Booth - were not questioned.
The body was then interred. (still no record of embalming). As time went on, the body was disinterred, and moved to a new burial site. At some point the body was exhumed and sent on a Circus Circuit. ( Of course this has never been confirmed, but we are led to believe - he was.), resulting in another burial.
I can easily understand why the family of John Wilkes Booth would question the true identity of the body being exploited, so they asked for an up-to-date, DNA confirmation, that this WAS Booth. The government said NO!. Are they afraid of the possible results? Are they sure of known, unacceptable, results?

The more I've studied the identification of the corpse from the barn, the more skeptical I've become.

Why did Lt. Baker run off with the body for over three hours, against Lt. Doherty's express orders? Why did he want to be alone with the body for so long? To change the clothes from the gray clothes that Boyd was wearing to dark clothes? To write Booth's initials on Boyd's left hand?

Speaking of Booth's tattoo, why didn't the autopsy report mention the tattoo? Only the hotel clerk mentioned seeing the tattoo on the corpse, correct? I find it very odd that the autopsy doctor made no mention of it.

When Dr. May first saw the body, he stated that it looked nothing like Booth and that he could not believe it was Booth.

Even when May got talked into going along with the ID of the body as Booth, he insisted that the change in appearance was unlike any he had ever seen and that the body he saw had freckles. He also said that the *right* leg was broken, whereas Booth broke his left ankle.

Why was only one autopsy photo taken of the body? And why did that photo quickly disappear? How do you "lose" such a historic piece of evidence?

Why wasn't anyone who knew Booth well asked to identify the body? Some of his fellow conspirators were on the Montauk, yet none of them were asked to ID the body.

Contrary to traditional myth, Booth's dentist did not ID the body, much less on the basis of dental records. There is no record that Dr. Merrill was even there, and there is no identification of the body in any of the official records on the case.

Here is my first stab at an article on this issue:

http://miketgriffith.com/files/boothescaped.pdf

You have not read enough of the excellent, well-researched books, articles, even the responses on this forum. Just a day or so ago, I gave the explanation for the "freckles." I believe the medical term is livor mortis - look it up. Also, the plugged tooth dental record was presented to the folks by Dr. Joseph Adrian Booth at the 1869 exhumation and was identified in the funeral parlor behind Ford's Theatre as the body awaited transport to Baltimore. The late-John C. Brennan did quite a bit of research on Dr. Merrill.

And, I don't believe that there were any identification reports attached to the "autopsy" - such as it was. The doctors pretty much just reported the cause of death. The identification was a different topic. Mike, I just bet that if you had been Booth back in 1865 and had been on the run for 12 days with a good deal of exposure to the elements and possible mishandling of your body after death, you might not be in the best of shape either.

I could continue, but at this point I suspect that I'm boring those on this forum who have cut their teeth on the Lincoln assassination story and don't want to hear more postulating on the "Booth escaped" theory. I am going to ask once more, have you read at least Michael Kauffman's American Brutus?