John - Out of the 140 attendees at the conference, only about a quarter of them are members of this forum. I suspect that you will have a captive audience for your talk -- and you are our lead-off speaker, so I expect you to set high standards for those who follow. The Q&A session should be very interesting... After all, the purpose of our conferences and the devotees of the Lincoln assassination studies is to educate people to the ups, downs, riddles, and controversies related to the event.

Without good debates, the field would be less interesting. I was so happy when I joined the volunteers at Surratt House back in 1975, and found that there were other people that I could discuss (and argue) things with. For about twenty years, I had lived with the impression that I was the only nut in the world addicted to the story! Even my college professors were not well-versed on the subject. Meeting people like Hall, Brennan, Keesler, Ownsbey, Hanchett, Steers, Turner, and others who could hit me with facts to prove their points was a wonderful awakening for me.

Thanks Laurie, I'm really looking forward to the conference and meeting some new kindred spirits.

For the record, I too had hoped one day to see the Booth autopsy photo. My research led me to different conclusions and I expressed my views to many people in this forum.

When I found the Gardner article - which solidified what I had theorized - the Wardell letter was fake, O'Sullivan's supposed role as Gardner's assistant that day or at the executions may not have been true - I was thrilled.

The excitement of the discovery outweighed my disappointment. At least I could contribute something of value to the community. The bigger picture here is that a 148 year old mystery has most likely been solved.

Why would Lawrence Gardiner lie? Seriously? Why do so many of these people lie as they relate themselves to this trajic epic event that will forever be studied? Posterity. Fame--however fleeting it may be. It was then and still is a powreful motive to do most anything.

Perhaps Lawrence didn't think he was making enough of his life and inserts himself into his famous father's life and into his father's most famous period. And the best way to do this may have been to refute widely held beliefs and make news.

I'm not saying that is what happened but it is certainly plausible.

(03-13-2014 12:36 PM)wsanto Wrote:  Perhaps Lawrence didn't think he was making enough of his life and inserts himself into his famous father's life and into his father's most famous period. And the best way to do this may have been to refute widely held beliefs and make news.

I'm not saying that is what happened but it is certainly plausible.

Wsanto, you make a great point. One of the most frustrating things about researching is having to wade through the numerous and obvious fabrications made by people who were looking for a little slice of notoriety or fame and were willing to lie to get it. That was definitely not the case. By the time Lawrence Gardner died at the age of 51, he had carved out a very public, successful and prominent life for himself.

I don't think its much of a stretch to state that to Washingtonians, he may have been more popular than his father.

Honestly, when I read the Lawrence Gardner article for the first time, I didn't know who he was. I knew Alexander had a son and a brother who worked with him, but I didn't know much else. After I did my homework, I came away very impressed by the man's life. We would have been hard pressed to have found a more reliable and credible source.

Will you be attending the conference this year? I will be dedicating a portion of my speech to Lawrence Gardner's life. Incidentally, Lawrence's name was in the papers quite often due to his work with the Democratic party. He didn't need to seek out newspapers to satisfy a need for fame. He had it.

One of the statements I've often heard regarding the Booth autopsy engraving that appeared in Harper's Weekly is that it looks too detailed not to have been based on a photograph.

During the Conference I didn't address this but would like to do so now. Some of the sketch artists of the Civil War period were absolutely fantastic. Books have been written about their impressive work, relationships with other "artists" (including photographers and newsmen), and how they brought the war to the home front.

Here's a sketch that was done at one of Lincoln's inaugurations, that was not lifted from or based on a photograph. To assume that engravings filled with detail must have been copied from a photograph is not accurate.

After reading all that this informed group has presented, I can more readily understand why the Booth family asked for positive identification of the "body". They didn't question whether or not he escaped, but what did you do with our beloved one?

(10-03-2018 03:06 PM)SSlater Wrote:  After reading all that this informed group has presented, I can more readily understand why the Booth family asked for positive identification of the "body". They didn't question whether or not he escaped, but what did you do with our beloved one?

Excuse me, John, but I believe that the Booth family knew full well where the beloved (especially by his mother) son was. Some of the later generations may have been more concerned with getting in the spotlight than truly caring about granting the remains "eternal rest."

In fact, they seem to care less about the remains of the three children also in that grave as well as the remains of Edwin Booth in Massachusetts. What the heck - dig him up too and to heck with his "eternal rest."

When do we let a multitude of documented evidence speak for itself? Such good and substantial history should close the chapter after 150+ years, I think.

(03-12-2014 02:03 AM)John E. Wrote:  Alexander Gardner never took a photograph of John Wilkes Booth and the mystery of the supposed photograph was put to rest by his son Lawrence in 1891. Lawrence worked as an assistant with his father and was present on the day of Booth's examination aboard the Montauk. Lawrence Gardner could not have been more clear when he stated, "Did we take a picture? No.". These weren't offhand remarks or an inference captured by a reporter. This was a first-person, direct quote from Gardner and was followed by a logical explanation.

The logical explanation being that the body looked nothing like Booth? How is that a logical reason not to have taken a single photo of the body? At the very least, photos should have been taken of the injuries and of any distinguishing marks.

Detective James Wardell said a photo was taken of the body and that he personally delivered it to Baker. Since Wardell was a friendly witness and even defended the War Department's suppression of the photo, why would he have fabricated his account?

L. Gardner, on the other hand, was probably trying to explain away the disappearance of the autopsy photo. Given how long Booth's fate had been a hot topic, it is very strange that no one else on the Montauk had ever said, "Oh, actually, we decided not to take a photo."

(03-12-2014 02:03 AM)John E. Wrote:  Alexander Gardner was tasked to take a photo of Booth's body but Maj. Thomas Eckert rescinded the order when it was evident Booth's day-old, "rapidly changing" corpse bore little resemblance to the handsome actor.

This is a medical impossibility. 24 hours is not enough time for a body to change so drastically in appearance that it "bears no resemblance" to the body in life. Not even close. One can Google a zillion cases of bodies being discovered 24-48 hours after death, outdoors, and of friends and family members still being able to positively ID them because their appearance was close or even essentially identical to their appearance in life.

Quote:Additionally, Booth's face had become freckled and discolored due to livor mortis.

Livor mortis is not going to cause a bunch of freckles to grow on a face. If you can find a single forensic or medical reference that says otherwise, I'd like to see it. I've checked over a dozen medical sources on livor mortis, and they all mention discoloration but say nothing about freckles.

Why didn't Barnes or Woodward mention the freckles, much less attribute them to livor mortis? Probably because they knew that freckles do not magically grow on corpses.

No one even knew that the face was heavily freckled until L. Gardner revealed this in his 1891 article, 26 years after the fact. But Gardner's article did not draw nearly as much attention as Dr. May's 1909 article, "The Mark of the Scalpel," which also revealed that the face was quite freckled.

The fact that none of the ID witnesses on the Montauk mentioned the freckles indicates that they were not being truthful or that they were told not to mention them. At least two of them had probably never seen Booth and thus did not know that he was not freckled.

How many people identified Booth's remains, and how many indicated his face was freckled?

Does anyone mention whether Booth's body, especially his face and hair, was cleaned up for identification?

Mike, I politely disagree with you about a person's appearance changing so quickly after death.
When someone undergoes a serious, painful injury (like a broken leg that is not given the chance to heal properly) , lack of sleep, lack of proper medical care, other circumstances which cause stress to the mind and body over a period of several days, their physical appearance can change. Booth's shooting injury was painful and caused nerve damage including paralysis. It is very likely his facial appearance changed because of that injury. Unless someone touched up his appearance, it is not surprising that some had difficulty recognizing him. He had lost his vitality, and it showed.

(10-30-2018 12:17 PM)Gene C Wrote:  How many people identified Booth's remains, and how many indicated his face was freckled?

Does anyone mention whether Booth's body, especially his face and hair, was cleaned up for identification?

Mike, I politely disagree with you about a person's appearance changing so quickly after death.

When someone undergoes a serious, painful injury (like a broken leg that is not given the chance to heal properly) , lack of sleep, lack of proper medical care, other circumstances which cause stress to the mind and body over a period of several days, their physical appearance can change. Booth's shooting injury was painful and caused nerve damage including paralysis. It is very likely his facial appearance changed because of that injury. Unless someone touched up his appearance, it is not surprising that some had difficulty recognizing him. He had lost his vitality, and it showed.

Sorry, but this is just fiction, both regarding such a rapid and drastic change in a body's appearance and the conditions of Booth's flight. I will just repeat what I've said several times already: Just find me one documented case in the history of forensic science where a body underwent such a marked change in appearance under even halfway similar circumstances.

And while you're hunting for this non-existent case, keep in mind that the day before the confrontation at Garrett's barn, Conger showed Booth's photo to people in Port Conway who had seen Booth in the preceding 24 hours, and those people were able to identify the photograph as Booth. So whatever magical transformation would have had to occur to his body would have had to happen after that point in time.

(10-30-2018 03:45 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  And while you're hunting for this non-existent case, keep in mind that the day before the confrontation at Garrett's barn, Conger showed Booth's photo to people in Port Conway who had seen Booth in the preceding 24 hours, and those people were able to identify the photograph as Booth. So whatever magical transformation would have had to occur to his body would have had to happen after that point in time.

So how and where does Booth disappear to in this brief span of 24 hours before the confrontation at Garrett's?
Some unknown persons home? That doesn't have any proof or hearsay statement to back it up. Someone must have surely seen something.

(10-31-2018 01:53 PM)Gene C Wrote:  So how and where does Booth disappear to in this brief span of 24 hours before the confrontation at Garrett's?
Some unknown persons home? That doesn't have any proof or hearsay statement to back it up. Someone must have surely seen something.

Gene, here is what Dr. Arnold says in his book:

"At some point Booth was hidden in a safe house somewhere between the Rappahannock and the Trappe House."

Dr. Arnold goes on to say "probably close to the Trappe House."

(10-31-2018 02:17 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Gene, here is what Dr. Arnold says in his book:

"At some point Booth was hidden in a safe house somewhere between the Rappahannock and the Trappe House."

Dr. Arnold goes on to say "probably close to the Trappe House."

Does he state a source for that information?

No.

Why am I not surprised.

Unlikely theories built on unsubstantiated information.