Good summation, Roger. Both Balsiger and Sellier have now died, and I wish that their movie and book would also. BTW: In sources like Wikipedia, NY Times, etc. summaries state that the movie was made from the book. Actually, it is vice versa, if I remember correctly. The movie came out in 1977, and then the two culprits wrote the book.

Here's what TV Guide had to say about the movie when it went small screen: Rating: screen shows only one star.

A dubious historical "re-enactment" proposing that Lincoln (portrayed by Anderson) was the victim of a conspiracy organized by Secretary of War Edward Stanton (portrayed by Middleton). Supposedly the secretary and his supporters were displeased with Lincoln's willingness to rebuild the South, so they secretly met and plotted to abduct the President. The "official" plan is to have confederate spy Boyd (played by Greene) kidnap Lincoln from the historic Ford's Theater. Booth (portrayed by Dillman), however, learns of the plan and takes advantage of the opportunity to assassinate Lincoln. A massive search takes place, and a suspect is gunned down--Boyd, not Booth. The natural cover-up follows, and the rest is history--sort of. The only thing THE LINCOLN CONSPIRACY actually reveals is America's fascination with conspiracies in general. Coming on the heels of Watergate and capitalizing on the Lincoln-Kennedy connections (a trendy topic of discussion in the mid-1970s), THE LINCOLN CONSPIRACY leads us to believe that John Wilkes Booth is living in exile (perhaps on the mountain where Noah's Arc supposedly is located) with a senile old Hitler, a Russian double of Lee Harvey Oswald, and an aging John F. Kennedy who is still running the country from his invalid's bed.

At Surratt House we used to tease and say Booth is with Hitler, Kennedy and Elvis on an isolated island and that Amelia Earhart is their housekeeper...

I think if you Google The Lincoln Conspiracy book and movie, one of the Wiki sites might have a photo of Boyd. And, I was mistaken when I said Boyd was killed in 1866 by a horse thief. He was killed by an Army unit that accused him of being the horse thief!

Yes, first came the movie and then the book, which came from the immortal house of Schick Sun Classic Books. I think it came out only in paperback, an indication in the 1970’s that no reputable publisher (think Scribner’s, Harper, etc.) would touch it. If you haven’t read it, not to worry—you can buy a copy off Amazon for .72. Reviews for the book are better than one might think, but this line from a negative review pretty much covers it: “What a load of RUBBISH!”

Agreed, Dave, and unfortunately Surratt House still gets visitors who read and believe that rubbish!

Photo of James W. Boyd here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_William_Boyd However, I believe that Mr. Hall established that the middle name of the real Boyd was "Ward"

The movie is on YouTube.
Hard to believe it came out 41 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBbVPbCYCP0

Now that I have had the chance to read all of what Dr. May said about Booth’s neck surgery and the body ID on the Montauk, several points come to mind:

* If Charles Dawson really did see the initials “JWB” tattooed on one of the body’s hands, why did no one else who identified the body mention this crucial evidence? When Dr. May expressed disbelief that the body was Booth, why didn’t Holt or Eckert or Bingham or Baker say, “Hey, Doc, look at the initials ‘JWB’ that the National Hotel clerk Charles Dawson noticed on one of the hands”?

No, I do not buy the story of Sgt. John Peddicord, given in 1903, that while helping to guard the body on the Montauk, he lifted the blanket that covered the body and—talk about lucky—just happened to lift the blanket in just the right spot to see the initials “JWB” on the back of one of the hands. Peddicord even conveniently added the detail that the letters looked like they were written by a “boy.” Of course, by then the whole world knew that as a youth, Booth had used India ink to write his initials on one of his hands. Furthermore, with all the brass and others hanging around the body, are we to believe that no one noticed Peddicord lifting the blanket?

When Holt interrogated the other Montauk identification witnesses, he never asked any of them if they had seen the initials “JWB” on one of the hands. He asked them if they had identified the body based on any peculiar or specific features, but said nothing about any initials on the hands. From all appearances, Holt did not know about the initials until Dawson mentioned them when Holt took his statement after the identification. So Dawson said nothing about the initials to anyone when he viewed the body? Would he not have naturally called this specific evidence to everyone’s attention?

I suspect that Dawson did not see any initials on the body’s hands but that he claimed he did because he had seen the initials on Booth’s hand at the National Hotel when Booth signed for rooms, signed bills, etc. If Dawson did see the initials on one of the hands, it is extremely odd that no one else saw them or knew anything about them during the identification.

* Some place great importance on Dr. Barnes’ and Dr. May’s statements that Dr. May “described” the wound on the neck “before he saw it.” But in his first statement, Dr. May reported that he merely told Barnes that the scar would be “a large ugly-looking scar.” He said nothing about describing its location or its size, just that it was “a gaping wound, which had to fill up by the process of granulation” and that this caused it to leave “a large ugly-looking scar.”

For one thing, Dr. May would not have been able to positively identify a large granulation scar as a scar that he made.

Additionally, there were thousands of soldiers walking around who had large scars on the back of their neck—from shrapnel, from bullets that grazed their neck, from exposure to fire when the woods around them caught fire (as happened in several battles), from hand-to-hand combat, from bar fights, etc., etc. So that was hardly a “unique” feature, and both doctors surely knew it.

Indeed, Dr. Barnes said that the scar’s only “peculiar appearance” was that it looked like a burn scar instead of an incision scar, which is not “peculiar” at all. Furthermore, burn scars usually look different from incision scars, because of the nature of the damage they do to the skin.

* In this 1887 article “The Mark of the Scalpel,” Dr. May claimed that he told Barnes about the scar’s “position, size, and general appearance,” but this is not what May said in his statement 22 years earlier. Nor did Dr. Barnes say anything about Dr. May describing the scar’s location and size. In fact, Barnes merely said that Dr. May stated that the scar looked like a burn scar because the wound had been reopened before it had finished healing (The Conspiracy Trial for the Murder of the President, Ben Poore transcript, volume 2, p. 61)

* In his 1887 article, Dr. May also claimed that at his request the body was “placed in a sitting position.” Not that it really matters, but no one else mentioned this being done.

* Surprisingly, few writers have noted Dr. May’s statement in his 1887 article that the body’s “lineaments” bore “no resemblance” to those of Booth. This statement appears just before his observation that there was no resemblance between the body and Booth. Let us read it in context:

Quote:The body was on deck, completely concealed by a tarpaulin cover, and Surgeon General Barnes and his assistants standing near it. By his order the cover was removed, and to my great astonishment revealed a body in whose lineaments [distinctive features] there was to me no resemblance of the man I had known in life! My surprise was so great that I at once said to General Barnes, "There is no resemblance in that corpse to Booth, nor can I believe it to be that of him." (“The Mark of the Scalpel,” p. 55)

This is important because “lineaments” is a medical term for “distinctive features, especially of the face.” Thus, Dr. May was saying that not one of the body’s—especially the face’s—distinctive features bore any resemblance to Booth.

Lafayette Baker, who got a very good, prolonged look at the body on the Montauk, said the body was fairly well preserved:

Quote:At Washington, high and low turned out to look on Booth. Only a few were permitted to see his corpse for purposes of recognition. It was fairly preserved, though on one side of the face distorted, and looking blue like death, and wildly bandit-like, as if beaten by avenging winds. (History of the United States Secret Service, Philadelphia, 1867, p. 506)

So Dr. May should have been able to recognize the body as Booth if it was in fact Booth’s body. Yet, when he saw the body, he said the distinctive features bore no resemblance to Booth’s, that there was “no resemblance” between the body and Booth, and that he could not believe it was Booth.

* Baker’s comment that “high and low turned out to look on Booth” is especially interesting and important because Dr. May stated in his 1887 article that there was great doubt that the body on the Montauk was Booth and that he believed that this was why he was called to identify it. Said Dr. May,

Quote:After the death of Booth, strong doubt existed whether the body brought to the Navy Yard at Washington was that of the man who had assassinated the President. In fact, it was openly asserted that it was not his body. Probably in consequence of this, a commission of high functionaries of the government was formed to obtain evidence as to its identification, and I received a summons to appear before it. (“The Mark of the Scalpel,” p. 54)

Dr. May was talking about the autopsy and identification on the Montauk. The “commission” consisted of Baker, Holt, Eckert, and Bingham, all of whom were present at the autopsy. Holt took Dr. May’s statement on the Montauk later in the day.

Why were people “openly” claiming that the body was not Booth? Because, as Baker stated, people “high and low” showed up to see the body, which is hardly surprising, but only a hand-picked few were allowed to see it, whereas in previous cases involving the body of a notorious murderer, such as John Brown, there was no such secrecy (much less a hurried and secret burial).

* In his April 27 statement, Dr. May stated that the body was “freckled” and that he did not recall that Booth “was at all freckled.” Booth was not freckled, and no case of livor mortis is going to magically cause a corpse to develop freckles.

* In his 27 April statement, Dr. May said something that could indicate that the body had a beard. He made this comment in the context of contrasting how the body looked with how Booth looked: "When he came to my office he had no beard, excepting a moustache."

This is interesting because Detective Wardell said that the body had “a growth on his chin” and that it had a “shaggy and dirty” moustache (D. Mark Katz, Witness to An Era: The Life and Photographs of Alexander Gardner, Rutledge Hill Press, 1991, p. 162, quoting Wardell’s detailed August 5, 1896, letter to historian Osborn Oldroyd). Wardell, who carried the one and only autopsy photo to Baker, defended the suppression of the autopsy photo and also stated that he believed the body was Booth. But Wardell apparently did not know that Booth shaved his moustache at Dr. Mudd’s house and was never known to wear a beard—and 10 days is not enough time to grow a shaggy moustache nor to grow what anyone would call a beard, especially in Booth’s weakened condition.

* Finally, neither Dr. Barnes nor Dr. May mentioned seeing Booth’s dentist, Dr. William Merrill on the Montauk, much seeing him make an identification based on dental evidence. There is no statement by Merrill in the official records, and his name does not appear on the military commission’s list of witnesses. If Merrill had identified the body as Booth based on dental evidence, this would have been much stronger evidence than the presence of “a large ugly-looking scar” on the back of the neck. Holt would have taken Merrill’s statement and would have hammered home the identification of two fillings in the same teeth that Merrill had filled with fillings in Booth’s mouth.

Tellingly, there is some evidence that Merrill did come to the Montauk. We can safely assume that if Merrill was there and examined the body, his findings were unacceptable to Baker and Holt et al, which would explain why his statement/report is nowhere to be found and why he was not even listed as a witness.

Was an autopsy photo ever taken? Thanks to Steve for sending this article from the April 1, 1891, edition of the Buffalo Commercial. Lawrence Gardner, son of Alexander Gardner, gives his account:

(10-13-2018 04:31 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Was an autopsy photo ever taken? Thanks to Steve for sending this article from the April 1, 1891, edition of the Buffalo Commercial. Lawrence Gardner, son of Alexander Gardner, gives his account: [snip]

With all due respect to the Gardners, Alexander Gardner was practically a government employee during the war and was close to senior figures in the War Department. Not only do we have Wardell's detailed first-hand account of watching the autopsy photo being developed and of his delivering it to Baker, but we have a contemporary report in the New York Tribune, published the next day, based on sources who were at the autopsy, stating that "a photographic view of the body was taken before it was removed from the Monitor" (Katz, Witness to An Era, p. 160).

In any case, Lawrence Gardner's account seems to me to be devastating for the claim that the body was Booth. Even though L. Gardner went along with the identification, his account is further confirmation that the body looked nothing like Booth. Importantly, L. Gardner said the body had a heavy beard ("quite a growth of beard"), and that the face was very much freckled. I think his observation is worth quoting again:

Quote:On removing the tarpaulin from the body, we were all struck by the lack of any resemblance to Booth. We had a number of photographs [of Booth] with us and endeavored by comparison to find a likeness between the photographs and the body, but there was no resemblance. The hair was very black and the cheek bones quite prominent, and these were about the only things that gave it any semblance to the photograph. On the face was quite a growth of beard, probably that of a week or ten days, and it was evident from the features that there had been great bodily suffering.

I had seen Booth but once in my life, and that was at the National Theater for a moment on the afternoon of the assassination. and I must say I could see but little resemblance to the man I met on that day. His face was very much freckled, as a result of exposure. ("Wilkes Booth's Body: The Story of Its Identification," Buffalo Commercial, April 1, 1891)

"Very much freckled" as a result of "exposure"? That does not work. Intermittent "exposure" to the elements for 10 days is not going to produce a bunch of freckles on a person's face. When Booth was forced to hide outdoors during those 10 days, he naturally would have remained in the shade. Furthermore, the top part of the corpse was covered for most of the trip to the Montauk, so the dead body's face would have had minimal exposure.

Heavy freckling does not occur as a result of intermittent exposure to sunlight for just 10 days. When I was in the Army and I did combat training exercises in hot environments, including the Mojave Desert, my fellow soldiers and had to spend many hours per day exposed to intense sunlight. We could not stop to find shade, and some of those training exercises lasted up to two weeks. I never saw anyone develop freckles as a result of that prolonged exposure to sunlight. I never developed any freckling as a result of that exposure.

As for L. Gardner's belief that the heavy beard growth happened in just a week or 10 days, there is no way that a normally beardless person is going to grow "quite a growth of beard" in 10 days, especially given the stress that Booth's body was under during those 10 days. Try it some time. My hair grows very quickly--I would say above average quickly--but I can't grow "quite a growth of beard" in 10 days. After 10 days, people can tell that you are starting to grow a beard, but no one would describe it as "quite a growth of beard."

Here is what Surgeon General Joseph K. Barnes wrote to Edwin Stanton.

I would ask...if the body on the Montauk were not Booth's, why would it have a fracture of the fibula in the same spot as the real Booth did?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sir,

I have the honor to report that in compliance with your orders, assisted by Dr. Woodward, USA, I made at 2 PM this day, a postmortem examination of the body of J. Wilkes Booth, lying on board the Monitor Montauk off the Navy Yard.

The left leg and foot were encased in an appliance of splints and bandages, upon the removal of which, a fracture of the fibula (small bone of the leg) 3 inches above the ankle joint, accompanied by considerable ecchymosis, was discovered.

The cause of death was a gun shot wound in the neck - the ball entering just behind the sterno-cleido muscle - 2 1/2 inches above the clavicle - passing through the bony bridge of fourth and fifth cervical vertebrae - severing the spinal chord (sic) and passing out through the body of the sterno-cleido of right side, 3 inches above the clavicle.

Paralysis of the entire body was immediate, and all the horrors of consciousness of suffering and death must have been present to the assassin during the two hours he lingered.

How far apart would the scar from Dr. May's surgery be from the gun shot wound in the neck Booth received?
Could the discolorization of the skin from the gun shot wound make the surgery scar difficult to see?

When Dr. May asked that Booth be lifted to a sitting position, for identification purposes, would rigor mortis have set in making that difficult?

Did Herold ever acknowledge that it was Booth who was shot at Garrett's?

Did the examination/identification aboard the monitor include any kind of specific measurements of the body, for example his height? John Wilkes Booth is listed as 5'8". J.W. Boyd is listed (in the information shown earlier regarding his oath of allegiance) as 6'2". That is a significant difference.

To follow, I see that according to Lawrence Gardner, Eckert did not want an autopsy photo because the body bore so little resemblance to Booth! Lawrence said that “General Eckert” said it would be better not to take an autopsy photo because the body did not look much like Booth. He claimed that no autopsy photo was taken and that the reason for this was Eckert’s concern that the body did not resemble Booth. Said Lawrence,

Quote:After everything had been prepared, General Eckert concluded that inasmuch as there was so little likeness in the remains [the body] to the photograph in existence of Booth, perhaps it would be best not to make the picture and the plan was abandoned for that reason. (“Wilkes Booth’s Body”)

Lawrence Gardner also claimed that since he had heard that Booth’s initials were on one of his “arms,” he unbuttoned the left sleeve cuff and saw the initials “JWB” on the forearm. Really? This is a doubtful claim that was probably told in a deliberate effort to bolster the government’s version of events.

Leaving aside the fact that the initials were not on the forearm, is it not very odd that Lawrence’s father, Alexander Gardner, did not take at least one photograph of this crucial item of evidence? Is it not equally odd that when Dr. May said that the body bore no resemblance to Booth and that he could not believe it was Booth, Lawrence Gardner and others did not immediately point out the tattooed initials? Why did not either of the doctors who examined the body mention the initials? Why did Holt fail to ask any of the identification witnesses if they had seen the initials?

I mean, my goodness, if Lawrence had seen the initials "JWB" on the body, surely it would have occurred to him to turn to his dad and say, "Hey, Dad, look here: Here are Booth's initials on the body!" And his dad and Eckert and the others surely would have realized the enormous evidentiary value of taking some photos of the initials. But, I guess we're supposed to believe that this natural, common-sense action did not cross anyone's mind?

(10-13-2018 10:05 AM)tom82baur Wrote:  Did the examination/identification aboard the monitor include any kind of specific measurements of the body, for example his height? John Wilkes Booth is listed as 5'8". J.W. Boyd is listed (in the information shown earlier regarding his oath of allegiance) as 6'2". That is a significant difference.

Good point, and one used by Mr. Hall and his detectives to refute the Boyd story. I do not believe that height was cited in the report, and that is probably because it was not a real autopsy that we would expect today.

---

(10-13-2018 09:11 AM)Gene C Wrote:  How far apart would the scar from Dr. May's surgery be from the gun shot wound in the neck Booth received?
Could the discolorization of the skin from the gun shot wound make the surgery scar difficult to see?

When Dr. May asked that Booth be lifted to a sitting position, for identification purposes, would rigor mortis have set in making that difficult?

Did Herold ever acknowledge that it was Booth who was shot at Garrett's?

Dr. May did not have any problem identifying the scar that he was quite familiar with. If it had been damaged by Booth's death wound, surely he would have remarked upon that.

I am not familiar with rigor mortis, but I believe they told me at the time of my mother's death that that is basically a temporary condition where the muscles contract and then relax again.

The voluntary statement made to Special Judge Advocate John A, Bingham by Herold on board the Montauk on April 27 does not mention Herold specifically saying, "Yes, that is John Wilkes Booth." Of course, those familiar with the history know that David did a fair amount of "fudging" during that statement. However, he did give testimony to a variety of things that occurred over the escape and they are totally consistent with the documented evidence - right down to him mentioning the diamond stickpin that Booth offered to give him. That is pretty strong evidence to me.

Now, Mr. Griffith, let's handle this statement of yours: "Importantly, L. Gardner said the body had a heavy beard ("quite a growth of beard"), and that the face was very much freckled."

I am just going to make a very personal comment. My hair and complexion when I was 28 were very similar to the description of Booth's during the height of his career -- very fair complexion, dark brown hair. Ten minutes in the sun would bring out freckles across my nose and cheeks as well as a pleasant pink glow (before it turned into a painful sunburn). I still believe that Booth's freckles were a result of livor mortis, but it is likely that freckles could form also from the sun's rays - just like mine.

My dark hair also was affected by the sun's rays, in case you want to throw that at us.

Now let's tackle the beard growth issue. I can't speak to that personally except to use my grandson as an example. He's 18, and for the past year or so, he has experimented with a beard. The biggest problem, however, is that his divorced parents have joint custody. Therefore, from age 6 until his departure for college in August, he spent three days with his father and four days with his mother (my daughter). His mother was okay with his stubbily beards, but not his father.

After just four days with Mom, he would have a nice showing of a beard and a mustache - and then he would shave it before going to Dad's house. In four days, he had a very identifiable growth of facial hair; couldn't we imagine that Booth had grown significant facial hair between shaving on April 15 and dying on April 26? I'm also guessing here, but wouldn't his facial skin have sunken a bit after death and that condition would enhance the look of the beard?

Finally, I take exception to your statement that Booth would have sought shade the whole time he was outdoors on his escape. Are you a native of Southern Maryland or the Northern Neck of Virginia? Do you know what April days can be like? They are not usually warm and toasty. I believe Booth would have sought patches of sun instead of shade. We also have statements from the Garretts about how he spent time outside on their lawn, even playing with the children. This exposure could certainly lead to the descriptions of the corpse made by a variety of people.

I have thoughts on some other statements and "what-ifs" that you have made also, but this is long enough. BTW: At one point I was ready to throw in the towel whenever I saw that you had posted; I didn't want to read the post because I knew my blood pressure would rise. However, I reconsidered when I realized that some of your postings were causing me to THINK and also to double-check history that I have known and taught for so many years. I now hope that your theories are causing others to do the same thinking and evaluating - and remembering that they know more than they thought they did!

Thanks to Steve who found another applicable newspaper article. He writes, "I tracked down a copy of the contemporary newspaper article mentioned in the forum thread which said there was a photograph taken of Booth's autopsy. I've attached a copy below for you to post to the forum. The article actually comes from page 2 of the April 28, 1865 Washington Evening Star instead of the New York Tribune. The article is mostly about Booth's capture and death but only mentions the body on the ship briefly at the end of the article. The source(s) used by the reporter were probably soldiers or War Department employees who had a good knowledge of the investigation but weren't on the ship and didn't know what happened during the examination of the body. The article doesn't describe the examination of the body at all. Just what happened before and that the body was wrapped in a blanket afterwards. The source(s) likely assumed photographs had been taken because they knew the Gardners had been taken onboard to photograph the body (as had been planned) but weren't aware that once they were onboard a decision was made not to photograph the body due to its condition.

Thank you Warren, Steve, and Laurie for your compassionate responses. Losing our granddaughter was a devastating experience. The kindness we received from many (including your kind words) has lightened our load. I have gained greater compassion for the losses of so many others.