My request is probably due to my aging brain and eyesight. I am asking folks who reply to a previous post to include only the pertinent part of the post you are replying to. This will greatly cut down the length of the posts. Example: if you are replying to a single paragraph of a long post, cut out the rest of the post and only include that paragraph, not the entire post. If you are replying to a few sentences only include those sentences. This should make discussions easier to follow and lessen the long repetitions. Thank you to everyone.

You mean like this?

(11-06-2018 05:09 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  lessen the long repetitions.
Thank you.

Yes. It may be necessary to include a little more than what I asked in order to provide context, but some of the posts lately have been difficult to follow due to their long length and inclusion of repetitions.

I am simply saying that an entire post does not need to be repeated when a person is only replying to a portion of the post.

"One, forensic sources inform us that teeth take 40-50 years to decompose, since they consist of calcium and other hard substances. You can Google it if you don't believe me."

Well, I Googled it and found another very interesting comment from a forensic anthropologist on reddit.com/askscience (love the gentleman's moniker - BoneHeadJones): Oddly enough, if your teeth survive YOU - and they find a nice resting place - they can easily last thousands of years.

Through the years, I have worked with several anthropolgists and archaeologists, and the above statement is exactly what those learned folks have told me...

A few points:

* It is extremely unlikely that the new filling was small and unnoticeable. In fact, it is very unlikely that any fillings done in the 1860s were small and unnoticeable. For two reasons: One, electric-powered dental drills had not been invented yet. Two, since they had no x-ray machines yet, you did not know you had a cavity until your tooth started hurting, so you did not know about the cavity until it had grown large enough that it began to hurt.

* Reportedly, the witnesses at the 1869 viewing had a Booth dental chart. No one reported a tooth to be missing. Joseph Booth announced ahead of time that if the body was his brother's, it would have a single filled tooth. But he did not know that his brother had had a second filling done shortly before the assassination, and he was apparently unaware of the claim that Dr. Merrill had identified his two fillings in the body on the Montauk. All of this suggests that this viewing was not a genuine, serious identification of the body, and that the body they were viewing was not J.W. Booth.

* I find it very significant that Col. Clarence Cobb was turned away from viewing the body on the Montauk with the excuse that Dr. Merrill had identified two of his fillings in the mouth and that others had also already identified the body as Booth. Cobb had known Booth for many years. If Cobb had been allowed to view the body, he would have been the one and only Montauk witness who had known Booth for a substantial length of time.

* The fact that the body that Pegram saw in 1869 had hair that was nearly a foot longer than he remembered Booth's hair being is significant. Judging from all the photos of Booth, he never let his hair grow long. And all will agree that Pegram's explanation for the 10-12-inch increase in hair length--that it grew that much after death--is refuted by medical science.

I am curious about Dr. Merrill's (alleged?) visit to the Montauk. I realize there is no written report in which Dr. Merrill gives an account of his findings. Some sources say Dr. Merrill pried open the corpse’s mouth and positively identified his fillings. What is the original source for this? Who saw Dr. Merrill do this?

What I am asking is whether or not the entire Dr. Merrill story might be apocryphal. OR are there eyewitness statements of people on the Montauk who actually saw Dr. Merrill examining the remains? I suppose it is possible that Merrill did indeed make an examination, but neither Bingham nor Holt took down a written statement by Merrill. But I am curious about any original sources that verify the truthfulness of Merill's visit. Why would Bingham and Holt question others who identified the remains (and these statements are available to us) but skip Merrill completely?

If this is a stupid question, sorry but I was once an auditor and it was an occupational hazard ... and old habits, etc.


This Thread has sometimes mentioned a Col. Clarence Cobb ( being prevented from viewing the dead body). I can see that several books refer to a Clarence F. Cobb ... but who was Col Clarence Cobb ? Could someone please enlighten me as to who this gentleman was , I assume a colonel, preferably with a few hyperlinks ?


I have located a gravestone for a Corporal Clarence Cobb. And he apparently knew Booth as a schoolboy but only for 3 years (Booth would have been 11 to 14 years of age) and this was 13 years before the body was on the Montauk. So I'm fairly sure that this couldn't be the 'Col Clarence Cobb' referred to in the thread.

https://boothiebarn.com/tag/edman-spangler/

(11-08-2018 05:09 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  If this is a stupid question, sorry but I was once an auditor and it was an occupational hazard ... and old habits, etc.


This Thread has sometimes mentioned a Col. Clarence Cobb ( being prevented from viewing the dead body). I can see that several books refer to a Clarence F. Cobb ... but who was Col Clarence Cobb ? Could someone please enlighten me as to who this gentleman was , I assume a colonel, preferably with a few hyperlinks ?


I have located a gravestone for a Corporal Clarence Cobb. And he apparently knew Booth as a schoolboy but only for 3 years (Booth would have been 11 to 14 years of age) and this was 13 years before the body was on the Montauk. So I'm fairly sure that this couldn't be the 'Col Clarence Cobb' referred to in the thread.

https://boothiebarn.com/tag/edman-spangler/

I have wondered the same thing and have been meaning to go to The Evidence book -- if I have the energy to lift it. There aren't enough hours in the day at work now, and that is where my reference copy is.

Here is a bit about a Clarence Cobb:

Name: Clarence F Cobb
Enlistment Date: 6 Jul 1861
Rank at enlistment: Private
State Served: Maryland
Survived the War?: Yes
Service Record: Enlisted in Company F, Maryland 2nd Infantry Regiment on 06 Jul 1861.Mustered out on 22 Jan 1864.
Sources: Maryland Volunteers, War of 1861-65

Name: Clarence F Cobb
Birth Year: abt 1843
Place of Birth: Baltimore
Age on 1 July 1863: 20
Race: White
Marital Status: Unmarried (Single)
Residence: Maryland
Congressional District: 3rd
Class: 1

He was born 3 Mar 1843, Maryland based on info from passport application. 5' 6", still alive in the 1910 census. I will check fold3 for his military records later tonight.

Thanks, Christine. that would match up to this link
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/3697...ce-f.-cobb

He was born in 1843 and, if he went to school with Booth, he would have been just 10 years of age when he was at school with Booth who was 5 years senior according to the Spangler hyperlink. He obviously was not a Colonel and I'd struggle to know how he could have identified a 27 year old Booth ... 13 or so years later. I'm obviously missing something perhaps Mike Griffith could assist ?

(11-08-2018 03:44 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  A few points:

* It is extremely unlikely that the new filing was small and unnoticeable. In fact, it is very unlikely that any fillings done in the 1860s were small and unnoticeable. For two reasons: One, electric-powered dental drills had not been invented yet. Two, since they had no x-ray machines yet, you did not know you had a cavity until your tooth started hurting, so you did not know about the cavity until it had grown large enough that it began to hurt.

* Reportedly, the witnesses at the 1869 viewing had a Booth dental chart. No one reported a tooth to be missing. Joseph Booth announced ahead of time that if the body was his brother's, it would have a single filled tooth. But he did not know that his brother had had a second filling done shortly before the assassination, and he was apparently unaware of the claim that Dr. Merrill had identified his two fillings in the body on the Montauk. All of this suggests that this viewing was not a genuine, serious identification of the body, and that the body they were viewing was not J.W. Booth.

* I find it very significant that Col. Clarence Cobb was turned away from viewing the body on the Montauk with the excuse that Dr. Merrill had identified two of his fillings in the mouth and that others had also already identified the body as Booth. Cobb had known Booth for many years. If Cobb had been allowed to view the body, he would have been the one and only Montauk witness who had known Booth for a substantial length of time.

* The fact that the body that Pegram saw in 1869 had hair that was nearly a foot longer than he remembered Booth's hair being is significant. Judging from all the photos of Booth, he never let his hair grow long. And all will agree that Pegram's explanation for the 10-12-inch increase in hair length--that it grew that much after death--is refuted by medical science.

This is just another recitation of the same old points you have been making for lo these many weeks with no substantive proof. I posted about the "longevity" of human teeth after death, and you just bring up Merrill again.

Please post definitive information on COL. Cobb also...

(11-09-2018 10:20 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 03:44 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  A few points: [SNIP--MG]

This is just another recitation of the same old points you have been making for lo these many weeks with no substantive proof.

Actually, that is incorrect. Those points contain several new observations that I have not made before.

For example, the point about the extreme unlikelihood of a filling being "small" back then due to the lack of x-ray machines and to the fact that therefore no one knew they had a cavity until it had grown large enough to cause pain--this point is new. This is in addition to the fact, which I have mentioned previously, that dentists had to use manual drills because the electric dental drill did not exist yet, which also makes it very unlikely that any filling back then was small.

Someone suggested that the second filling was overlooked at the 1869 viewing because it was small.

I might add that those points stand unrefuted.

I have already proved that hair never grows more than a fraction of an inch after death, citing medical sources. So how could the body that Pegram saw have had hair that was "nearly a foot" longer than Pegram remembered Booth's hair being? (Photos of Booth show that he kept his hair at a consistent length.)

Quote:I posted about the "longevity" of human teeth after death, and you just bring up Merrill again.

I do not understand your point. I, too, have posted sources on the fact that teeth last a very, very long time, and that they don't even begin to decay for at least 40 years. I have also cited sources on the fact that teeth rarely fall out after death because they are sort of cemented with the bone that houses them when the body dies.

Quote:Please post definitive information on COL. Cobb also...

As I made clear, I was citing Booth's first biographer, Francis Wilson, who defended the government's version. Here is what Wilson said about Colonel Cobb:

The Colonel Clarence F. Cobb mentioned was a boarding-school companion of Booth's. He and Booth had kept up their friendship. Booth had hailed Colonel Cobb in front of Humphries's livery stable and talked with him on Good Friday, April 14, 1865, the day of the assassination. Paymaster Benjamin Price sent Colonel Cobb to help identify the body of Booth. Surgeon-General Barnes told Cobb that it was unnecessary; that he, Barnes, and nine others had fully identified the body; that the well-known Washington dentist, Dr. Merrill, had filled two of Booth's teeth; that Booth's mouth had been forced open and the fillings fully identified by Dr. Merrill, so that the identification of the body had been complete. (John Wilkes Booth: Fact and Fiction of Lincoln's Assassination, p. 199)

As I have shown previously, the claim that Dr. Merrill came to the Montauk and ID'd his two fillings has been repeated in numerous traditionalist books and articles, even though there's no trace of Merrill's presence or findings in the official records. This story was also told in some newspapers at the time.

So the one guy who came to the Montauk who actually knew Booth well was told that his services were not needed because others had supposedly ID'd the body and because Dr. Merrill had allegedly identified the two fillings in the mouth.

This case is loaded with evidence that has been there along but that has been overlooked by most scholars because it does not fit the traditional narrative.

For example, we are told over and over that the body was "positively identified" at the 1869 viewing, but this is absolute poppycock. The "body" at that viewing was a collection of blackened bones, hair, and teeth. That's why Joseph Booth placed such importance on the finding of one filled tooth, but, oops, he didn't know that Merrill had done a second filling shortly before the assassination. So to believe the traditional story, one must assume that the other filled tooth either fell out, which is extremely rare (and no one mentioned a missing tooth), or that someone stole it but for some reason left the clearly visible older filling alone, or that the other filling was very small and went unnoticed, which is highly implausible.

Additionally, as mentioned, the body at the 1869 viewing had hair that was a foot longer than Booth's hair and had serious damage to or just below the left knee that neither Dr. Mudd nor the autopsy doctors mentioned seeing.

These are serious problems. Bodies don't just magically grow 10-12 inches of hair after death; they don't magically grow freckles on the face after death; they don't inflict serious damage near the knee on themselves; they rarely lose teeth after just four years; and bodies do not undergo such a drastic change in their appearance, after less than 24 hours, that they "bear no resemblance" to the body in life.

If anyone can find me a single case in the annals of forensic science where this has occurred, I would really like to see it. I've been searching for one, and so far have found no case that even remotely parallels this one, and I've found plenty of cases that prove the opposite (i.e., cases where friends and family members were able to identify loved ones' bodies 72 hours or longer after death, provided there was no serious damage to the face).

Mike, you write
"As I made clear, I was citing Booth's first biographer, Francis Wilson, who defended the government's version."

I hate to be picky (no really, I do) but, Mike, I couldnt find anywhere in your previous posts where you 'made clear' that you were citing Francis Wilson. Maybe we have a difference to the meaning of the words 'made clear' and 'citing'.

Thats why I was so pleased to see you now writing in your most recent post...

Here is what Wilson said about Colonel Cobb:

The Colonel Clarence F. Cobb mentioned was a boarding-school companion of Booth's. He and Booth had kept up their friendship. Booth had hailed Colonel Cobb in front of Humphries's livery stable and talked with him on Good Friday, April 14, 1865, the day of the assassination. Paymaster Benjamin Price sent Colonel Cobb to help identify the body of Booth. Surgeon-General Barnes told Cobb that it was unnecessary; that he, Barnes, and nine others had fully identified the body; that the well-known Washington dentist, Dr. Merrill, had filled two of Booth's teeth; that Booth's mouth had been forced open and the fillings fully identified by Dr. Merrill, so that the identification of the body had been complete. (John Wilkes Booth: Fact and Fiction of Lincoln's Assassination, p. 199)"

Does Mr Wilson's book provide details as to how he knows that Cobb 'kept up his friendship' with Booth? ( I wouldnt be able to tell you the names of any boys that were 5 years older than me at my school, but thats just me)

Your posts have made frequent reference to Colonel Clarence Cobb. I have asked you to provide a hyperlink for details about him ... if you dont have one, why not say so (just a suggestion). That's fine by me.

( I see you also refer to 'Paymaster Benjamin Price' ... any chance of details about him? I have searched on the internet, but no luck)

(11-09-2018 07:02 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  Mike, you write
"As I made clear, I was citing Booth's first biographer, Francis Wilson, who defended the government's version."

I hate to be picky (no really, I do) but, Mike, I couldnt find anywhere in your previous posts where you 'made clear' that you were citing Francis Wilson. Maybe we have a difference to the meaning of the words 'made clear' and 'citing'.

Thats why I was so pleased to see you now writing in your most recent post...

Here is what Wilson said about Colonel Cobb:

The Colonel Clarence F. Cobb mentioned was a boarding-school companion of Booth's. He and Booth had kept up their friendship. Booth had hailed Colonel Cobb in front of Humphries's livery stable and talked with him on Good Friday, April 14, 1865, the day of the assassination. Paymaster Benjamin Price sent Colonel Cobb to help identify the body of Booth. Surgeon-General Barnes told Cobb that it was unnecessary; that he, Barnes, and nine others had fully identified the body; that the well-known Washington dentist, Dr. Merrill, had filled two of Booth's teeth; that Booth's mouth had been forced open and the fillings fully identified by Dr. Merrill, so that the identification of the body had been complete. (John Wilkes Booth: Fact and Fiction of Lincoln's Assassination, p. 199)"

Does Mr Wilson's book provide details as to how he knows that Cobb 'kept up his friendship' with Booth? ( I wouldnt be able to tell you the names of any boys that were 5 years older than me at my school, but thats just me)

Your posts have made frequent reference to Colonel Clarence Cobb. I have asked you to provide a hyperlink for details about him ... if you dont have one, why not say so (just a suggestion). That's fine by me.

( I see you also refer to 'Paymaster Benjamin Price' ... any chance of details about him? I have searched on the internet, but no luck)

Good luck getting a straight answer AussieMick... Col. Clarence Cobb is not mentioned in Dr. Arnold's book, btw. I had so much to do at work today that I didn't get a chance to check The Evidence book for Cobb, and I suspect that, if there is any reference to a Cobb other than Sgt. Silas Cobb, it will refer to young Cobb going to the same school with JWB many years ago.

---

Ref. Post 88 above - If that isn't just more of the same old same old, I don't know what is... Also, have we failed to mention that Francis Wilson's book was published in 1929? Wilson was 11 years old at the time of the assassination - just a tidbit of info.

(11-09-2018 07:41 PM)L Verge Wrote:  [Good luck getting a straight answer AussieMick... Col. Clarence Cobb is not mentioned in Dr. Arnold's book, btw. I had so much to do at work today that I didn't get a chance to check The Evidence book for Cobb, and I suspect that, if there is any reference to a Cobb other than Sgt. Silas Cobb, it will refer to young Cobb going to the same school with JWB many years ago.

---

Ref. Post 88 above - If that isn't just more of the same old same old, I don't know what is...

I checked and there is no Col. Clarence Cobb. In fact the only Clarence Cobb in the Union Army that I could find was the Pvt. Clarence F. Cobb mentioned by Christine above. After he was mustered out of the 2nd Maryland he was in Co. 86 of the 2nd Battalion Veterans Reserve Corp. He was reduced in rank from Corp. to Pvt. in 1862, so his grave marker show in the Find A Grave link is technically incorrect.