Mike, could you at least answer Susan's question: "Why did the fake Booth not surrender?"

(10-14-2018 04:59 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  A person aboard the Montauk who said he saw the J.W.B. initials was John Peddicord. The article below is from the Roanoke Evening News, June 6, 1903, and it was posted last year by another forum member.

I might add that Asia Booth Clarke's memoir was still unpublished at the time of Peddicord's statement, so he would not have known that she had written, "He had perfectly shaped hands, and across the back of one he had clumsily marked, when a little boy, his initials in India ink."

In the article Peddicord noted that the letters were "in pale, straggling characters, 'J.W.B.', as a boy would have done it."

Even a casual critical analysis of Peddicord's story reveals a number of glaring problems.

First off, did you notice that later in the article Peddicord claimed that the body was buried at sea? Does anyone here believe this occurred? (The buried-at-sea myth was started by Lafayette Baker. He ordered that a fake burial at sea be staged, and that's the story that the public was fed, yet many people did not believe it because reports began to surface that the sea burial was staged and that the body had actually been buried on land.)

Moreover, notice that Peddicord claimed to be present at the start of the autopsy and that he was "quite close to the examination." Okay, well, then how come Peddicord said nothing about the alleged Todd-Stafford incident, which, if he was really there, would have occurred right in front of him and would have greatly bolstered his own story's credibility?

Supposedly, the ship's surgeon, George Todd, noticed some "marks" on one of the hands of the body just after Dr. Barnes cut away the body wrapping, and then, as the story goes, Patrick Stafford, another crew member, leaned over, looked at the marks, and told Todd that they were the initials "JWB." Peddicord says nothing about this alleged incident. If this incident really happened, it would have happened right in front of Peddicord, assuming Peddicord was really there. Is it not very odd that Peddicord said nothing about this incident, nor about anyone else noticing the initials, especially when this would have corroborated his story?

Here's the core problem with the "JWB" evidence: When they gave their initial statements and/or wrote their initial reports, NONE of the three doctors who examined the body mentioned seeing the initials "JWB" on either of the hands, or the wrist, or the arm. Not one word about them.

If we assume the Todd-Stafford incident actually occurred, it is very odd and suspicious that Dr. Barnes said nothing about the initials when Dr. May initially expressed strong disbelief that the body was Booth. If Dr. Barnes had seen Todd and Stafford identify "JWB" initials on one of the hands, the first words out of his mouth when Dr. May voiced his disbelief would have been "Oh, but, Dr. May, Booth's initials 'JWB' are tattooed here on the left hand." That would have been a much more credible identification feature than "a large ugly scar" made nearly two years earlier (and that looked like a burn scar and not a surgical scar).

It is especially odd and suspicious that Dr. May did not mention seeing or hearing about any initials being found on the body when he gave his statement to Holt that evening, when he testified at the John Surratt trial, or when he wrote "The Mark of the Scalpel," since Dr. May was acutely aware of the doubts about the body's identification and did his best to support the War Department's story while being honest enough to admit--several times--that the body bore no resemblance to Booth.

Additionally, if we accept for the sake of argument the doubtful story that the authorities on the boat decided not to take any photos of the body because the body looked so unlike Booth, surely Barnes or May or L. Gardner or Todd--or Holt if he were acting in good faith--would have said something like, "Well, let's at least get some photos of these 'JWB' initials."

You know, initially, I was fully prepared to grant that the body on the Montauk had the initials "JWB" on it, since I knew that Luther Baker had ample opportunity to write the initials on the body while he had the body for several hours. But when I began to study the "JWB" evidence, I was struck by how doubtful, contradictory, and flimsy it is, not to mention belated.

(10-14-2018 04:59 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Mike, could you at least answer Susan's question: "Why did the fake Booth not surrender?"

According to Conger, who was in the back of the barn, the man in the barn was surrendering when he was shot. Conger said that the man dropped his crutch, and then dropped his weapon and began to walk toward the front door, and that he was shot a few seconds later:

Quote:I looked in and heard something drop on the floor, which I supposed to be Booth’s crutch. He turned around towards me. When I first got a glimpse of him, he stood with his back partly to me, turning towards the front door. He came back within five feet of the corner of the barn. The only thing I noticed he had in his hands when he came was a carbine. He came back, and looked along the cracks one after another rapidly. He could not see anything. He looked at the fire; and, from the expression of his face, I am satisfied he looked to see if he could put it out, and was satisfied that he could not do it, it was burning so much. He dropped his arm [weapon], relaxed his muscles, and turned around, and started for the door for the front of the barn. I ran around to the other side; and, when about half round, I heard the report of a pistol. (The Conspiracy Trial for the Murder of the President, volume 1, Ben Poore transcript, pp. 311-312)

And I note again the medical evidence that Boston Corbett could not have shot the man in the barn, unless the man had been practically kneeling, because the wound track went downward at a significant angle. Dr. Arnold:

Quote:The total height that Corbett would have had to fire from is about twenty-one feet [assuming the victim was standing]. The story of the pursuit of John Wilkes Booth is riddled with myths, contradictions, and misinformation, but there is one fact that yet exists that is irrefutable--the bullet that killed the man in Garrett's barn entered his neck at an angle of twenty-five degrees above the horizontal. (The Conspiracy Between John Wilkes Booth and the Union Army to Assassinate Abraham Lincoln, p. 264)

This is not to mention the forensic evidence that the bullet was a rifle bullet, not a pistol bullet.

Thank you, Mike. Can you now address these questions: How did the man in the barn obtain John Wilkes Booth's diary? And, why did the fake Booth have a broken fibula in the same spot as the real Booth? Plus, Laurie's question, how did Booth's engraved stickpin happen to be holding together a torn undershirt on the fake Booth?

And why didn't fake Booth surrender at the same time David Herold did?

Quote:According to Conger, who was in the back of the barn, the man in the barn was surrendering when he was shot. Conger said that the man dropped his crutch, and then dropped his weapon and began to walk toward the front door, and that he was shot a few seconds later:

Mike, I've written more on Everton Conger than just about anyone out there, and I spent several years finding the various statements he made and the interviews he gave, and in none of them did Conger say Booth was surrendering. That is your conclusion based on your belief.

I have another question. Willie Jett, at the trial of the conspirators, testified that he saw the "J.W.B" initials on Booth's hand. If they weren't there after the capture, that would mean the switch had to have happened after Booth, Herold and the three Confederates crossed the Rappahannock. Given that Booth was in plain view of the Garrett family, when did that switch take place?

Best
Rob

(10-21-2018 09:15 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Thank you, Mike. Can you now address these questions: How did the man in the barn obtain John Wilkes Booth's diary? And, why did the fake Booth have a broken fibula in the same spot as the real Booth? Plus, Laurie's question, how did Booth's engraved stickpin happen to be holding together a torn undershirt on the fake Booth?

And what about the identification of the "plugged tooth" in Booth's skull in 1869?

And also: Why in the world would so many good historians (both professionals in the field as well as excellent lay folk) spend 150+ years trying to cover up your so-called Booth escapee? What possible gain would they have? Have they all been part of a secret Illuminati group intent on covering up many "evil" government (or behind-the-scenes) plots?

After sixty years of being addicted to the Lincoln assassination story - and understanding the times, the culture, and the sheer chaos of this one event near the end of the most catastrophic period in our history to date - I happen to think that the investigation may have been sloppy and not up to modern standards, but that the identification of the body was done correctly. I find no evidence that there was a GREAT AMERICAN HOAX played on our country for over 150 years like you want to suggest.

And, I certainly question the skills of those who have tried to sell "your" idea over those years. Eisenschiml called himself an "Armchair Historian," and I would agree. Just sit in your comfortable chair and theorize without getting into libraries, archives' stacks, family papers, etc. like the masters of the art of research have done and are still doing. And remember to use Occam's Razor along the way...

Indeed. Any actual conspiracies in this story have had to stand the dogged scrutiny of all of these years of historians, who have had every reason to find the truth. To believe that Kauffman, Steers, Hanchett, Hall, Swanson, Pitch, and Alford—these are just current names I came up with quickly—have all got it wrong is preposterous. Eisenschiml self-servingly called himself an “armchair historian” (I’m just an ordinary person, don’t you know, who loves history and wants to find the truths which have somehow eluded everyone, but, hey, if I’m wrong, well, I’m not a trained historian). His book libeled a great American, Stanton, and fueled the speculation of false conspiracies.

Something else that bothers me about Dr. May's claim that he recognized the neck scar on the body as the scar he made on Booth's neck is that apparently Dr. May only saw the wound shortly after it had been reopened and never saw it again. He said Booth came to see him "about a week" after the wound had "united" and explained that it had been reopened during a play when an actress grabbed him too roughly around the neck. Dr. May said the wound would now have to heal by granulation. Granulation does not even begin until about five days after the wound has occurred and typically takes three weeks for a minor wound, longer for a larger wound. So when Dr. May saw Booth and his reopened wound, the granulation process had not even begun or had just barely begun, and Dr. May said nothing about ever seeing Booth again. Leaving aside the fact that it is virtually impossible to distinguish one granulation scar from another as long as they are about the same size and location, how would Dr. May have known how the scar looked after it had completed the granulation process if he never saw Booth again?

Also, I am struck by the unbelievable amount of incriminating evidence that was allegedly found on the body. Conger and others claimed that they found the following items on the body after they pulled it out of the barn: Booth's diary, pictures of girlfriends, a pin with a stone engraved to "J. W. Booth," and six personal letters to Booth's friends! Holy cow, Batman! What a mother load of damning evidence to be found on a guy who was fleeing for his life and who was trying to hide his identity! So we are supposed to believe that Booth shaved his mustache at Dr. Mudd's house to try to avoid being easily recognized, but he carried a mother load of evidence that revealed his identity.

Any man with an ounce of common sense who was running from the law would have avoided carrying any paper or item that could have identified him. If anything, he would have been carrying fake papers. Booth quickly found out that practically the whole country detested him for what he had done, and he knew that federal soldiers would be crawling all over every conceivable escape route. But we are supposed to believe that he carried on his person an astounding amount of evidence that gave away his identity.

True, the six personal letters went "missing" and have never been seen since they were supposedly found on the body, but the point is that federal officers on the scene swore that they found the six letters on the body.

A word about the point that Peddicord described the JWB initials that he allegedly saw as being "pale, straggling characters . . . as a boy would have done it" before Asia Booth Clarke's book was published. A few points come to mind:

* One, I would repeat the point that Peddicord's story, given in 1906 (41 years after the fact), contains several obvious holes, chief among them being his failure to mention the alleged Todd-Stafford finding of the initials, which would have occurred right in front of him if it happened and if his story were true, and his fantastic tale that he and Sgt. Harley, "while eating" no less, uncovered the body's face, pulled out a photo of Booth that they just happened to have with them, compared the photo to the body's face, and saw that the face and the photo matched.

What amazing luck that two sergeants assigned just that evening to guard the Montauk just happened, by cosmic coincidence, to have a photo of Booth on them!

Not surprisingly, Sgt. Hartley, writing in 1926 (61 years after the fact), corroborated Peddicord's tale in a letter. Neither man ever explained why they had a photo of Booth with them. Moreover, Hartley implied that the initials he supposedly saw were on the arm: he said he had to "strip up the sleeve" to see them.

Dr. Steers buys this in its entirety and presents it as valid evidence (Blood on the Moon, pp. 264-265).

* Two, leaving aside the dubious nature of Peddicord's story, let us assume for the sake of argument that Peddicord did in fact see the JWB initials on the back of the hand. His description of the writing could just as easily match an attempt by an adult to write the initials on the back of a hand of the dead body. We must remember that they did not have ball-point pens back then. Try using an old-fashioned stylus pen to write letters on the back of your hand. The result might well look like the writing was done by a child.

Finally, some traditionalist authors quote Army surgeon G. L. Porter's claim, made in 1911 (46 years after the fact), that he saw the initials JWB on the body--on the right hand of the body--when he helped bury the body in the Old Arsenal Penitentiary . They usually fail to mention that Porter also claimed that the face was "unmarred" and that it had no mustache (and apparently no chin hair either--or at least Porter mentioned none):

Quote:Booth’s handsome countenance was unmarred by the agony of his lingering death. His moustache and the long lock of hair which had hung down his forehead Booth cut off at the house of Dr. Mudd, where he had stopped in his flight. ("How Booth's Body Was Hidden," The Columbian, 1911, p. 68, available at https://ia800208.us.archive.org/8/items/...0port.pdf)

So what's it going to be? No mustache or a big, dirty mustache? A face that was unrecognizable as Booth and a face whose "lineaments" bore no resemblance to Booth, or a face that was "unmarred" and that matched his photo? A little stubble on the chin or "quite a growth of beard"? JWB initials with stars around them, or JWB initials with no stars around them? JWB initials on the left hand, or the left wrist, or the left forearm, or the right hand?

"True, the six personal letters went "missing" and have never been seen since they were supposedly found on the body, but the point is that federal officers on the scene swore that they found the six letters on the body."

Heard someone mention those letters years ago, but have never known the source of that statement. Please cite source and give direct quotes from those members of the Garrett Farm Patrol. Also list to whom the letters were addressed.

(10-21-2018 07:56 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  This is not to mention the forensic evidence that the bullet was a rifle bullet, not a pistol bullet.

Mike, could you elaborate on this point? Specifically, what evidence leads to that conclusion. Is there an article/book that makes this argument that we can check out?

Also, I'd be curious to hear what you believe happened to Booth if he wasn't killed at Garrett's farm. What evidence do you have that Booth was alive in the years after 1865? It's an important question that I don't think has come up in this thread. To even consider the possibility of a misidentification of the body after so many points of identification - scar, tattoo, broken leg, personal effects belonging to Booth, dental plug, Herold saying Booth was dead, etc.; there has to be some credible evidence that Booth was alive afterwards.

(10-19-2018 04:17 PM)L Verge Wrote:  And now, Mr. Griffith, since you are convincing very few of us (hopefully none), and we will obviously never convince you, why don't we just hang this topic up and stop repeating the same things over and over again?

Why don't you address the glaring holes and contradictions in the belated accounts that you are so uncritically citing as evidence?

* Munroe said he needed "no long inspection" to recognize the body as Booth. Really? Was he looking at the same body that Dr. May said bore no resemblance to Booth and whose lineaments (distinctive features, mainly of the face) looked nothing like Booth's? Was Munroe looking at the same body that Lawrence Gardner said looked so unlike Booth that "we were all struck by the lack of any resemblance to Booth" when the tarp was removed from the body?

* If Peddicord was there when the autopsy began and was "quite close to the examination," how in the world would he have failed to notice Todd and Stafford seeing and identifying the initials, which Todd said they did right after Barnes cut away the wrapping? How did Barnes fail to notice this? How did May fail to notice this? In a court of law, both Peddicord's and Todd's stories would be ripped to shreds because of these obvious discrepancies.

* How is it that well before the autopsy began, and before Dr. Barnes had even arrived, Peddicord and Hartley just happened, by amazing coincidence, to have a picture of Booth handy? These were two sergeants who had just been assigned that night to be guards on the Montauk. What on earth were they doing with a picture of Booth? I mean, really?

* Barnes said the body's face was "wild and worn," but Porter said the face was "unmarred," and Dr. May said the body bore no resemblance to Booth and that he could not believe it was Booth. Which is it going to be?

* Perhaps you have no problem with trusting belated witnesses who could not tell the difference between a hand, a wrist, and a forearm, but I do.

Furthermore, I haven't even brought up the issue of the scars on Booth's body that nobody saw on the body on the Montauk that night. Theodore Roscoe, among others, discussed this issue. Booth had several scars from accidents and altercations over the years. Nobody on the Montauk that night saw a single one of them, a very odd omission given that the Montauk witnesses were able to spot "pale" characters on a hand that could not be read unless you took a closer look at them.

And how about the tattoos on Booth's other hand, which consisted of a cross and some stars. If all these decades-belated witnesses amazingly noticed the small "pale" initials on the left hand, which could not be read unless you got a closer look at them, how is it that not a single person there or at the burial at the Old Arsenal Penitentiary noticed the cross and the stars on the body's other hand?

(10-23-2018 05:30 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Furthermore, I haven't even brought up the issue of the scars on Booth's body that nobody saw on the body on the Montauk that night. Theodore Roscoe, among others, discussed this issue. Booth had several scars from accidents and altercations over the years. Nobody on the Montauk that night saw a single one of them, a very odd omission given that the Montauk witnesses were able to spot "pale" characters on a hand that could not be read unless you took a closer look at them.

I've got Roscoe's book, and to spare me having to read through it again, could you please let me know a page number or chapter the comments about Booth's scars can be found. The only one I could find was on p. 427, a quick reference to the one on his neck.

I'm not sure what state of undress Booth was in when various people identified his body, but from what I've read, most if not all were able to identify him by physical, facial appearance. The didn't need to see scars to identify him.

For those interested, Theodore Roscoe was probably one of the most knowledgeable experts on WWII submarine history and wrote a couple of highly regarded books about it.

40 years ago, I was sure that there was a conspiracy of some sort with the Federal government and that JWB had gotten away. I think we would all love to see history turned around and proved that what we know was all a great mis-lead. The reality is there is no good, emphasis on good, evidence that leads to an alternate history. Booth had so much evidence of identity with him is because he was fleeing his prior life, never to return.

(10-23-2018 06:44 AM)Gene C Wrote:  

(10-23-2018 05:30 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Furthermore, I haven't even brought up the issue of the scars on Booth's body that nobody saw on the body on the Montauk that night. Theodore Roscoe, among others, discussed this issue. Booth had several scars from accidents and altercations over the years. Nobody on the Montauk that night saw a single one of them, a very odd omission given that the Montauk witnesses were able to spot "pale" characters on a hand that could not be read unless you took a closer look at them.

I've got Roscoe's book, and to spare me having to read through it again, could you please let me know a page number or chapter the comments about Booth's scars can be found. The only one I could find was on p. 427, a quick reference to the one on his neck.

I'm not sure what state of undress Booth was in when various people identified his body, but from what I've read, most if not all were able to identify him by physical, facial appearance. The didn't need to see scars to identify him.

For those interested, Theodore Roscoe was probably one of the most knowledgeable experts on WWII submarine history and wrote a couple of highly regarded books about it.

Gene - I have never seen any reference to Booth's entire body being examined or even exposed, except for the leg and the area around the neck and head that were close to the death wound and the obvious identification of the tattoo, which would be mentioned by anyone personally familiar with Booth.

Frankly, knowing the customs and etiquette of the day, it would have been improper for even doctors to expose all of a corpse to public view (and yes, the military on board would be considered "public").

And speaking of the military on board: "* How is it that well before the autopsy began, and before Dr. Barnes had even arrived, Peddicord and Hartley just happened, by amazing coincidence, to have a picture of Booth handy? These were two sergeants who had just been assigned that night to be guards on the Montauk. What on earth were they doing with a picture of Booth? "

Research will tell you that Booth's cdv was very easy to obtain and that the War Department had it duplicated and distributed in large numbers for that time in order to assure that any of those involved in the search for the assassin would be able to more easily identify persons of interest (and we all know how many got detained and/or arrested for having similar features, hair, mustache, etc. -- make something of that...). Needless to say, personnel assigned to the D.C. area would have more access to these photos than those out in the field.

One other comment on the tattoo: Booth scratched his initials into his hand at a young age. It is doubtful that he could apply enough pressure to get that India ink deeply into the flesh like a real tattoo artist would. How large and how dark the letters were when he finished is anyone's guess, as is how straight and even they were.

Now, we know that nearly twenty years passed before the identification was made on board the Montauk. How much had the tattoo expanded given the hand's growth over the years? While India ink is indelible, how much had it faded? So many factors to consider, imo.

(10-10-2018 11:55 PM)Christine Wrote:  Wading in. Well more like tip toeing. On the subject of scars: My daughter has a burn scar on her forehead. When exposed to sunlight, even after 30 years, what is normally not too obvious becomes angry and bright. As for not being able to use scars for identification: when I was 8 my bike broke while I was riding it, and a bolt ripped my calf open. Nearly 50 years later my husband could still use that scar for identification purposes. Concerning the changed look of the body: last year our granddaughter died shortly after birth. I was able to hold her about 15 minutes after she was born. When I again held her 10 hours later she had already begun to bruise and discolor. She was still beautiful to me but at her burial 5 days later (even after embalming and the gentle care of the funeral directors) she looked so different.

One, you're talking about a scar that your husband has seen for decades, which is a very different situation than the one under discussion. Dr. May only described seeing the re-opened scar one time--two years before he saw the body on the Montauk--and, as I have noted before, another doctor operated on Booth's neck after Dr. May did.

Two, we are not talking about the bodies of infants that die shortly after death. We're talking about adults who die. Again, you can Google a gazillion true-crime cases where friends and relatives were easily able to identify the victim even though their dead body was not discovered until 24-48 hours after death.

Someone mentioned Occam's Razor. As a longtime student of critical thinking, I am a big fan of Occam's Razor. So, for example, I think the simplest, most logical explanation of the fact that neither Barnes, Woodward, nor May mentioned seeing or hearing about any JWB initials in their reports and testimony is that they never saw or heard about the initials that night. I think the simplest, most logical explanation of the fact that May, L. Gardner, and, per Gardner, Eckert said that the body did not resemble Booth is that it was not Booth. I think the simplest, most logical explanation of the fact that the decades-belated witnesses who claimed that they saw JWB initials on the body gave such contradictory and mutually impeaching accounts is that they were lying. I think the simplest, most logical explanation of the War Department's bizarre, unprecedented handling of the dead body is that the body was not Booth. I think the simplest, most logical explanation of the fact that the only autopsy picture of the body vanished is that it showed the body of someone other than Booth. I think the simplest, most logical explanation of the failure to take a single photo of the crucial JWB initials--which, contrary to Steers' nonsense, they most certainly could have done, as numerous 19-century photos prove--is that the initials were not there or were of such a nature that they were problematic.

No, I do not believe I am misreading Conger's statement about the man in the barn's actions just before he was shot. Conger said that he heard something drop (which was apparently the crutch), that the man then "dropped his arm," "relaxed his muscles," and started walking toward the door, and that just a few seconds after that the shot rang out. That certainly sounds like someone who was surrendering.

Someone asked me about my basis for saying that the bullet entered the man in the barn's neck at about a markedly downward angle. I have discussed the evidence of this in two posts in this thread. One source was the AFIP forensic review of the vertebrae, and the other source was Dr. Robert Arnold's analysis of the vertebrae and the wound descriptions.