(10-25-2018 03:16 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(10-17-2018 07:10 AM)davg2000 Wrote:  

(10-16-2018 06:19 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  And why did the fake Booth not surrender?

Excellent question!

He did try to surrender. He dropped his crutch, dropped his weapon ("arm"), and started walking toward the front door of the barn, as he had been asked to do. This is what Conger said he did. How is that not surrendering? If you drop your weapon and start walking toward the door as you've been asked to do, how is that not surrendering?

By the way, lest anyone think that by "arm" Conger meant the body part, "arm" was a very common synonym back then for gun. In fact, if you read Conger's testimony, you'll see that he used the terms "arm" and "arms" for gun and guns numerous times. If you read the entire trial transcript, you'll find dozens of instances where "arm" and "arms" were used for gun and guns.

Quote:I have to say, when a conspiracy theory starts to involve convenient doubles who are content to die in someone else's place and the massive planting of evidence, it's probably time to find a new conspiracy theory.

No one is saying that. No one has ever said that Boyd, or whoever the poor man was, knew he was going to be killed in Booth's place.

And what did Lafayette Baker mean when he told Loreta Valesquez that he intended to get Booth's body "dead or alive, or a mighty good substitute for it" (Theodore Roscoe, The Web of Conspiracy, p. 427, quoting Valesquez's 1876 memoir)?

I believe that Corbett contended that Booth had his weapon drawn as he advanced towards the door - which meant any men outside that door could become random targets. That is when Corbett believed that God meant for him to be Lincoln's avenger. BTW: An excellent authority on the Garrett Farm Patrol (along with Rob Wick) presented a very interesting session on the possibility of "Booth's 'Death by Cop' Suicide" at a Surratt conference years ago.

The Fake Booth sure knew from the moment that those troops surrounded the barn that he was likely to be killed. Would not the Fake Booth have skedaddled earlier that day while in hiding and viewing the troops riding past the farm en route to Willie Jett? Why even go into hiding if you were ignorant of the fact that you had been duped?

Finally, I would not trust Loreta's ten-year-old attempt to make money off of her writings, especially quoting our buddy Lafayette Baker, who was not known for his honesty and fair play and did not write his own book. Roscoe's repeating it made it third-hand hearsay, I believe.

(10-25-2018 03:16 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(10-17-2018 07:10 AM)davg2000 Wrote:  

(10-16-2018 06:19 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  And why did the fake Booth not surrender?

Excellent question!

He did try to surrender. He dropped his crutch, dropped his weapon ("arm"), and started walking toward the front door of the barn, as he had been asked to do. This is what Conger said he did. How is that not surrendering? If you drop your weapon and start walking toward the door as you've been asked to do, how is that not surrendering?

By the way, lest anyone think that by "arm" Conger meant the body part, "arm" was a very common synonym back then for gun. In fact, if you read Conger's testimony, you'll see that he used the terms "arm" and "arms" for gun and guns numerous times. If you read the entire trial transcript, you'll find dozens of instances where "arm" and "arms" were used for gun and guns.

Sorry Mike, you cannot simply say 'he did try to surrender'.

The only certainty we have of what happened is that a fire was started and then a person was shot.

We dont know how much smoke there was (Filling the barn? suffocating the man? blinding him so that he couldnt see where he was stumbling?). We dont know (as far as I'm aware) where Conger was standing and what he could see, where Corbett was and what was going thru his mind, how much light there was in the barn ( the fire was lit from outside), we dont know how vigorous the fire was burning, what the person did when the fire began and whilst the fire was burning (choke? crawl away? cover his head? immediately advance to the door? where was the fire? near the door?), we dont know how easily the person could move with or without a crutch, nor even how near he was to the door before he was shot, nor whether he was shot standing up or kneeling or crawling or stumbling.

I'd suggest that neither Conger's (you called him a 'henchman' in one of your posts and I'd agree) nor Corbett's (he was mentally unstable and had reasons for wanting to justify his shooting) statements can be relied upon.

If the person had a broken leg (coincidentally just like Booth did) and dropped (accidentally? ... if he threw it away, why would he do that?) his crutch ... IMO he would have then picked it up or at least bent to do so ... but neither Conger nor Corbett say that.

So ... I dont think anybody can reasonably say 'he did try to surrender'. We just dont know.

---

Apart from anything else, I think it would have been a high risk (and stupid) process to conspire claiming that a man other than Booth had been shot in the barn. You'd be relying on a lot of people to say the right thing and keep their mouth shut about the process.

There would be a continuing risk that the 'real' Booth (who had never been an introvert or hermit) might make himself known or be discovered. The only safe option would be to have him killed ... and Booth would be aware of that. Very difficult to keep all that secret.

Quote:We dont know how much smoke there was (Filling the barn? suffocating the man? blinding him so that he couldnt see where he was stumbling?). We dont know (as far as I'm aware) where Conger was standing and what he could see, where Corbett was and what was going thru his mind, how much light there was in the barn ( the fire was lit from outside), we dont know how vigorous the fire was burning, what the person did when the fire began and whilst the fire was burning (choke? crawl away? cover his head? immediately advance to the door? where was the fire? near the door?), we dont know how easily the person could move with or without a crutch, nor even how near he was to the door before he was shot, nor whether he was shot standing up or kneeling or crawling or stumbling.

Actually, AussieMick, we do know much of that. Everton Conger gave four official accounts of the capture of Booth. The first came on April 26, 1865 aboard the Montauk (along with Byron Baker). The second came during the trial of the conspirators, the third came during the trial of John Surratt and the fourth came during the impeachment investigation against Andrew Johnson. Somewhere in papers long stored away, I have all four. Conger testified that before he set the barn on fire, Booth could see the soldiers but they could not see him. Once the fire started, the exact opposite took place. The soldiers could see Booth but he couldn't see them (that also explains how Conger knew Booth relaxed his muscles, as he testified during the conspiracy trial). Conger was at the rear of the barn when he set the fire. Once it began burning and he saw what he described as Booth's movements he began to walk toward the front of the barn. He was at the side of the barn when he heard Corbett's pistol. The fire was burning vigorously. In fact, after Booth was shot and Conger had entered the barn along with Byron Baker, they almost immediately had to get out because the fire was spreading quickly.

Quote:I'd suggest that neither Conger's (you called him a 'henchman' in one of your posts and I'd agree) nor Corbett's (he was mentally unstable and had reasons for wanting to justify his shooting) statements can be relied upon.

Conger was not a henchman. He was a dedicated soldier turned detective who nearly lost his life twice for the Union cause. His statements are definitely trustworthy.

Back in the 1990s I wrote a five-part series on Conger for a newspaper I worked for and where Conger lived for around ten years. I have the manuscript available in a PDF format that I will send to Roger and have him upload it. If I had the chance now I would certainly rewrite it, and some of the things I wrote I later discovered to be incorrect (plus, I uncovered new material that I didn't have access to at the time). It will give everyone a nuanced picture of who Conger was.

Best
Rob

Rob,
Thanks for all that info. It just shows how much info is out there that I dont know! And how careful I need to be in saying "We dont know ...." . If that article could be uploaded it would be great (for me anyway).

And its so refreshing to read someone writing "If I had the chance now I would certainly rewrite it, and some of the things I wrote I later discovered to be incorrect". Kudos doesnt adequately express it. Now you've forced me to change my opinion of newspapermen/women.

From what I have read, Everton Conger was so infirm from his war wounds that he could barely sit in the saddle. Before crossing the Rappahannock from Port Conway into Port Royal, Conger and the men rested at the magnificent Belle Grove mansion, likely because Conger was in pain and exhausted. President James Madison was born on that property.

Clara Barton had nursed him through one of his serious injuries. When Miss Barton was seeking funding for the establishment of the American Red Cross, she turned to Conger's Congressman brother, and when he realized that she may have saved Everton from dying, she got the help she needed.

I say this to back up Rob's statement that Conger was no henchman. He and his family were well-respected.

(10-25-2018 05:26 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 03:16 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(10-17-2018 07:10 AM)davg2000 Wrote:  

(10-16-2018 06:19 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  And why did the fake Booth not surrender?

Excellent question!

He did try to surrender. He dropped his crutch, dropped his weapon ("arm"), and started walking toward the front door of the barn, as he had been asked to do. This is what Conger said he did. How is that not surrendering? If you drop your weapon and start walking toward the door as you've been asked to do, how is that not surrendering?

By the way, lest anyone think that by "arm" Conger meant the body part, "arm" was a very common synonym back then for gun. In fact, if you read Conger's testimony, you'll see that he used the terms "arm" and "arms" for gun and guns numerous times. If you read the entire trial transcript, you'll find dozens of instances where "arm" and "arms" were used for gun and guns.

Sorry Mike, you cannot simply say 'he did try to surrender'.

Then what do you call it when someone drops their weapon and begins to come to the door, as they have been asked to do? What do you call that? I call it an act of surrender, an act that should protect you from being shot, since you are unarmed and are complying with the request that you come out.

Assuming the man was Boyd or some other Confederate, he would have been very leery about being surrounded by 28 Union soldiers. The believable part of the statements attributed to the man in the barn sound exactly like what such a man would say when suddenly finding himself surrounded by his former enemies.

Corbett could not have fired the shot. The fatal bullet was a rifle bullet, as the damage to the spine makes clear, which is undoubtedly why the bullet was first identified--twice--as a rifle bullet. Plus, the bullet transited the body at a downward angle of 25 degrees above horizontal.

---

(10-25-2018 12:09 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 05:48 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Anyone trying to escape with his life is not going to be carrying around a bunch of evidence that identifies him as the suspect.

If Booth were as obsessed with hiding his true identity as you indicate, then why did he give his real name to Sgt. Silas Cobb when he crossed the Navy Yard Bridge?

How do you know he gave his real name? Just because Cobb said so? If he gave his real name to Cobb, why would he have used a fake name after that? Why would he not have used a fake name at the bridge?

---

(10-25-2018 07:11 AM)Gene C Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 05:48 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Second, as Dr. Arnold notes, the diary could have been planted on the body quite easily, or the planter could have simply pulled it out of his own pocket and claimed that he had just found it on the body.

But we do not really even know if any of the items that were allegedly found on the body were actually on the body at the farm.
They could have been given to one of Lafayette Baker's two henchmen on the search party, Conger or Lt. Baker, ahead of time and simply handed over to the War Department with the claim that they were found on the body. Dr. Arnold suggests that Jett gave these items to Conger when they met shortly before the confrontation at Garrett's farm.

Third, the amount of damning evidence supposedly found on the body is nothing short of amazing, and rather suspicious--too pat, too convenient, too much. Anyone trying to escape with his life is not going to be carrying around a bunch of evidence that identifies him as the suspect. If a suspect is going to shave off his mustache to try to avoid being identified, why in the devil would he carry around a bunch of evidence that identified him?

These two reasons just don't add up.
All your saying is it "could have" happened this way, but you have no facts to back it up.
You even admit, "but we do not even really know"
As for item #3, Booth shaved off his mustache before he made any entries in the diary.
His diary is basically a one man pity party.
Just like a lot of politicians today, he misjudged public reaction.
The shaving of the mustache only has to do with immediate identification.
Instead of being a guy with a mustache and a crutch with a nice spencer carbine,
now he's just a guy with a crutch and a nice spencer carbine.

But, the spencer carbine was probably a plant by union soldiers too.

Here are some "could haves" for you to consider.....
If all your conspiracy theories were true, the soldiers "could have" kept whoever in Garrett's barn, in the barn, when it burned to the ground.
Easier for a vast conspiracy to have the charred remains identified as Booth.
Or "it could have happened" this way,
Lafayette Baker could have really dumped the body found at Garrett's in the Potomac... until they found another body that more resembled Booth
and the body he did bury belonged to some one else.

To much supposition for me. Yours and Dr. Arnold's theories have to many "it could have happened" and 'we don't really know" to carry much weight and be seriously considered.

The traditional story is loaded with suppositions and speculation, much of them quite illogical and contradictory to common sense and human experience.

Nup, sorry. I dont consider the statements of either Conger (reputable or not) nor Corbett as anything substantial.
(in modern times, when a presumed offender has been shot by police with no independent witnesses the statements of law enforcement members are often regarded with considerable cynicism).

The bullet 'transited the body at a downward angle of 25 degrees above horizontal' ? Is it not possible that the person was bent over or stumbling or (likely to my mind) crawling?

Using an Occams Razor approach ... the most likely scenario is that the person was desperate to get out of a burning, choking, barn. Surrendering? call it that if you wish, I'd say he just wanted "out!" And he may have dropped the crutch or thrown it away (its irrelevant, I think) ... similarly weapons. So he's stumbling around towards the door and (if the bullet did transit downwards) he was shot as he was crawling (due to gammy leg and to avoid the hot smoke which drifts upwards).

As to why he didnt surrender earlier , I gave 4 (I think) possibilities ending with 'We dont know' (and you might like to consider using that one).

(10-25-2018 07:11 AM)Gene C Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 05:48 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Second, as Dr. Arnold notes, the diary could have been planted on the body quite easily, or the planter could have simply pulled it out of his own pocket and claimed that he had just found it on the body.

But we do not really even know if any of the items that were allegedly found on the body were actually on the body at the farm.
They could have been given to one of Lafayette Baker's two henchmen on the search party, Conger or Lt. Baker, ahead of time and simply handed over to the War Department with the claim that they were found on the body. Dr. Arnold suggests that Jett gave these items to Conger when they met shortly before the confrontation at Garrett's farm.

Third, the amount of damning evidence supposedly found on the body is nothing short of amazing, and rather suspicious--too pat, too convenient, too much. Anyone trying to escape with his life is not going to be carrying around a bunch of evidence that identifies him as the suspect. If a suspect is going to shave off his mustache to try to avoid being identified, why in the devil would he carry around a bunch of evidence that identified him?

These two reasons just don't add up.
All your saying is it "could have" happened this way, but you have no facts to back it up.
You even admit, "but we do not even really know"
As for item #3, Booth shaved off his mustache before he made any entries in the diary.
His diary is basically a one man pity party.
Just like a lot of politicians today, he misjudged public reaction.
The shaving of the mustache only has to do with immediate identification.
Instead of being a guy with a mustache and a crutch with a nice spencer carbine,
now he's just a guy with a crutch and a nice spencer carbine.

But, the spencer carbine was probably a plant by union soldiers too.

Here are some "could haves" for you to consider.....
If all your conspiracy theories were true, the soldiers "could have" kept whoever in Garrett's barn, in the barn, when it burned to the ground.
Easier for a vast conspiracy to have the charred remains identified as Booth.
Or "it could have happened" this way,
Lafayette Baker could have really dumped the body found at Garrett's in the Potomac... until they found another body that more resembled Booth
and the body he did bury belonged to some one else.

To much supposition for me. Yours and Dr. Arnold's theories have to many "it could have happened" and 'we don't really know" to carry much weight and be seriously considered.

Lots of silly strawman arguments here. The soldiers were not part of the conspiracy and were counted on to keep their mouths shut, which most of them did, or to lie, as Corbett did.

Baker could not have dumped the body into the Potomac by then, since news of "Booth's" death had already reached the capital. So, instead, a sea burial was faked; the body was buried at a secret location; there was not a even a limited viewing of the body; nobody who knew Booth well was asked to ID the body; no photo of the body was released; and nobody learned about just how drastically the body did not resemble Booth until decades later.

How about if you folks explain four facts that are on the table:

* The bullet was initially described as a rifle bullet. Read Dr. Arnold's analysis of the damage to the vertebrae and the tell-tale signs that the bullet must have been a high-velocity rifle bullet, and then find me a single forensic case where similar damage was done by a pistol bullet similar to the one Corbett would have used.

* Per the AFIP forensic review, the bullet transited the body at a sharply downward angle, an angle that Dr. Arnold has determined was 25 degrees below horizontal. Either everyone at the barn who described the man in the barn's position and action just before he was shot was lying, or the person who shot him fired from a position that was above him.

* The body looked so unlike Booth that L. Gardner said that officials on the boat decided not to take any pictures of it, and Dr. May said he had never seen a body's appearance change so drastically from how it looked in life and that the body's lineaments bore no resemblance to Booth. Find me just one case in the history of forensic science where a body underwent such a drastic change under even remotely similar circumstances. Find me just one.

* Both May and L. Gardner said the face was heavily freckled. Find me just one case in the history of forensic science where a person's face developed heavy freckling after death.

(10-25-2018 06:30 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Back in the 1990s I wrote a five-part series on Conger for a newspaper I worked for and where Conger lived for around ten years. I have the manuscript available in a PDF format that I will send to Roger and have him upload it. If I had the chance now I would certainly rewrite it, and some of the things I wrote I later discovered to be incorrect (plus, I uncovered new material that I didn't have access to at the time). It will give everyone a nuanced picture of who Conger was.

Best
Rob

Many thanks to Rob for sending the series he wrote on Conger. (The download may take a little time.)

CLICK HERE.

Download took about one minute for me. Very very interesting. Thanks.

Where does the evidence of Booth wanting or trying to surrendering come from?

According to Lieutenant Edward Doherty, it didn't quite happen that way.
"Booth then said in a drawling voice. 'Oh Captain! There is a man here who wants to surrender awful bad.'

"I replied, 'You had better follow his example and come out.'

"His answer was, 'No, I have not made up my mind; but draw your men up fifty paces off and give me a chance for my life.'

"I told him I had not come to fight; that I had fifty men, and could take him.

"Then he said, 'Well, my brave boys, prepare me a stretcher, and place another stain on our glorious banner.'

"At this moment Herold reached the door. I asked him to hand out his arms; he replied that he had none. I told him I knew exactly what weapons he had. Booth replied, 'I own all the arms, and may have to use them on you, gentlemen.' I then said to Herold, 'Let me see your hands.' He put them through the partly opened door and I seized him by the wrists. I handed him over to a non-commissioned officer. Just at this moment I heard a shot, and thought Booth had shot himself. Throwing open the door, I saw that the straw and hay behind Booth were on fire. He was half-turning towards it.

"He had a crutch, and he held a carbine in his hand. I rushed into the burning barn, followed by my men, and as he was falling caught him under the arms and pulled him out of the barn. The burning building becoming too hot, I had him carried to the veranda of Garrett's house.

Source - http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/booth.htm

(10-25-2018 12:52 PM)Gene C Wrote:  It "could have been" someone else using Booth's name.
Or "it could have been" Cobb was pressured into saying it was Booth
Or "it could have been" the mysterious rider said "Boothe" and Cobb misunderstood. They do sound similar.
Or "it could have been" Booth was insulted that he wasn't recognized for the star matinee idol that he was, so he gave Cobb his real name to impress him.

Gene, the man was still the real Booth at the bridge. According to Dr. Arnold the switch came close to the end of the escape period, not the beginning. Dr. Arnold writes that Major James O'Beirne was in charge of obtaining the "fake Booth."

Here are a couple of excerpts from p. 192:

"O'Beirne had to find a victim that was about the same size as Booth, used crutches, with no immediate family to question his whereabouts, and had a scar on the back of his neck."

"There were plenty of returning soldiers, and many of them were on crutches, unattached, and the same size as Booth. James Boyd also had the bad luck to have a wide scar on the back of his neck. When Major O'Beirne had all the pieces in place, he telegraphed this fact to Edwin Stanton and also notified Booth and Herold."

"There were plenty of returning soldiers, and many of them were on crutches, unattached, and the same size as Booth. James Boyd also had the bad luck to have a wide scar on the back of his neck. When Major O'Beirne had all the pieces in place, he telegraphed this fact to Edwin Stanton and also notified Booth and Herold." (claim of Dr. Arnold)

Just curious, but at what point in time did Major O'Beirne know that he would need a doppelganger that required a crutch? No one except Davy knew the extent of Booth's injury until he was treated by Dr. Mudd, and that is the first time he used a crutch. The bridge guard would not have known. When did O'Beirne telegraph Stanton that he had found the perfect double with convenient leg injury and scar, and how and when could he have notified Herold and Booth of their good luck?

What is Dr. Arnold's source for claiming that Boyd had a wide scar on the back of his neck? BTW folks, I remember one of the first reasons we were critical of the book and did not sell it -- there are no footnotes nor endnotes in the entire book, and his meager list of sources are mainly Mark Katz, O'Reilly and Dugard, and the very questionable Theodore Nottingham (whose book we also rejected years ago).

No footnotes? Yikes! And yet here we are still discussing his theories? Even though I am not a historian, my research about Aiken made me a bit of a "source snob." With a host of contemporary and primary sources to study, why do authors believe they can simply quote other authors (who quoted other authors who quote other authors. . .) withthout referring their readers to the actual source material? No matter how much research someone has done when they publish without the actual source notations they are in essence telling the reader to trust them and their conclusions without acknowledging that the reader may actually have a brain and wish to consult those same sources to come to their own conclusion. Sorry, but with so many rich historical books with hundreds of historical sources, and so little time, I choose the mantra "no sources? No reading."