So then I take you have gone through EVERY known medical file in the world over and not found one case where a body changed? Unless you have, your statement that there is no "single known case in the history of forensic science where a body's appearance changed so drastically after 10 days under similar/worse conditions (1) that it "bore no resemblance" or "so little resemblance" to the person in life, (2) that it sprouted freckles on the face to the degree that it was described as heavily freckled, and (3) that even its lineaments "bore no resemblance" to the person in life" is, again, a matter of your opinion more so than demonstrable fact. And what if someone was so inclined to take up your ridiculous challenge and try to find a case? Just because it happened, or didn't, in another case is neither proof, nor a denial of proof, that it happened in this case. This case stands or falls on its own evidence, the vast majority of which says it was Booth.

Best
Rob

In reviewing Dr. John Frederick May’s three statements on the appearance of the body on the Montauk, I noticed something that I had not noticed before: In his April 27 statement, given to Joseph Holt, Dr. May said that the body looked “much older” than Booth did when he saw him less than two years earlier:

Q. Do you recognize the body as that of J. Wilkes Booth from its general appearance, and also from the particular appearance of the scar?

A. I do recognize it, though it is very much altered since I saw J. Booth. It looks to me much older, and in appearance much more freckled than he was. I do not recall that he was at all freckled.

We need to remember that this statement was buried in the National Archives for decades, and that Dr. May was not called to testify in the conspiracy trial.

Dr. May did testify at the John Surratt trial in 1867, but he was not asked about, nor did he mention, the body’s altered appearance, its older appearance, and the freckles.

Thus, for decades no one knew that the body on the Montauk looked very different from Booth, older than Booth, and that the face was noticeably freckled.

(Nor did anyone know that in his April 27 testimony, Dr. May clearly seemed to imply that the body he viewed had a beard, unlike Booth the last time he saw him: “When he came to my office, he had no beard, excepting a moustache.” It really seems like the witnesses viewed two bodies, hey?)

In April 1865, Booth was only 26 years old. When Dr. May last saw him, Booth was only 24 or 25. In Dr. May’s 1887 article “The Mark of the Scalpel,” he described Booth as a “handsome young man” (p. 53).

Now, what would have caused Booth to look “much older” at 26 than he looked at 24 or 25, less than two years earlier? Certainly not his 10-day flight. Contrary to later mythology, Booth was not “half-starved” and “haggered” during his flight. He got fed at Dr. Mudd’s house. Cox fed him and gave him an extra blanket. Jones brought him food every day while he was hiding near Cox’s house. The Rollins fed him. The Garretts fed him. He spent at least three nights indoors, and quite possibly four. This was spring time and the temperatures were not harsh. When he did sleep outdoors, he slept among many trees and under their cover.

So what could have caused Booth to look “much older” on April 27? Answer: NOTHING. Just as nothing known to science could have caused him to suddenly sprout freckles after death. Just as nothing known to science could have caused the body’s head to grow an extra 10-12 inches of hair after death. Just as nothing known to science could have caused his body’s appearance to undergo such a drastic change that its lineaments “bore no resemblance” to Booth, so much so that everyone was “shocked” by the body’s lack of resemblance to Booth.

When Conger showed William Rollins a picture of Booth less than 48 hours before the barn shooting, Rollins “without the least hesitation” identified Booth as the man he had seen on crutches. By the way, Rollins noted that the man on crutches had no mustache! Humm! So 48 hours before Booth supposedly died, he had no mustache, yet several witnesses who saw the corpse on the Montauk claimed that it had a mustache, and Rollins had no trouble recognizing Booth as the man in the picture that Conger showed him.

Testimony and memories can often be challenged, but in this case, luckily, we can appeal to science—forensic science, to be specific. We have abundant knowledge on the kinds of changes that a body undergoes after death, inside and out. Livor mortis does not cause freckling. Any first-year medical resident can tell the difference between freckles and the dark blotches of discoloration that livor mortis produces. And there is no phenomenon known to science that Booth could have experienced during his flight that will cause a person to look “much older” between the age of 24/25 and the age of 26.

When Conger showed Rollins the picture, Rollins didn’t say, “Yes, it looks like the guy on crutches, except the guy on crutches looks a lot older and he has freckles.” That’s because Booth’s appearance had not magically aged to the point that he looked “much older” than he did at 24/25, and this was less than 48 hours before he was allegedly killed.

(12-08-2018 02:23 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  The Garretts fed him.

I was sure surprised to see that you wrote this, Mike.

Are you finally admitting it was Booth, not Boyd (or another Booth imposter), at Garrett's?

(12-08-2018 02:23 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  In reviewing Dr. John Frederick May’s three statements on the appearance of the body on the Montauk, I noticed something that I had not noticed before: In his April 27 statement, given to Joseph Holt, Dr. May said that the body looked “much older” than Booth did when he saw him less than two years earlier:

Q. Do you recognize the body as that of J. Wilkes Booth from its general appearance, and also from the particular appearance of the scar?

A. I do recognize it, though it is very much altered since I saw J. Booth. It looks to me much older, and in appearance much more freckled than he was. I do not recall that he was at all freckled.


Now, what would have caused Booth to look “much older” at 26 than he looked at 24 or 25, less than two years earlier?

First of all: Booth was far from what you would call an outdoors man. Sleeping under the stars was definitely not his thing and being forced to do so had to be a shock to his body.

Most freckles are produced by exposure to ultraviolet sunlight (feel free to look it up). Booth was described as a man with 'porcelain' skin. Freckling is common for individuals with less-pigmented skin. So 10 days of exposure would easily cause this in Booth's case.

Secondly: Your description of his flight makes it sound like is was a walk in the park. He was forced to stay outdoors and walk with a broken leg for 10 days and be exposed to the elements for 24 hrs/day. If you had to endure this treatment, I'll bet it would age you at least 2years too.

You claimed: "When he did sleep outdoors, he slept among many trees and under their cover."

Have you ever camped or slept on bare ground in April? I have and I can assure you its not cozy. There aren't many trees with leaves at that time of year so there is very little shelter from the rain. The ground is still frozen just inches under your body and with nothing more than a blanket Booth must have had to drink heavily.

Most likely he didn't get a solid 8 hours sleep per night. He probably had to wait until sunrise to get warm enough to sleep. You say he was fed but he couldn't have been eating enough to make up for all the calories he was burning trying to keep warm and survive.

You also claimed: "Contrary to later mythology, Booth was not “half-starved” and “haggered” during his flight."

I know of nobody who actually witnessed Booth during his flight ever make an assertion like this. Feel free to correct me if wrong - I don't know how he couldn't be haggered and half starved.

Mike, You can write whatever you want but why distort the truth? You continually say that Booth was on the run for 10 days. Every website I look at says it was 12 days. Lincoln shot on the 14th. Booth dies on 26th.

I know you want to make out that his time between the assassination and his own death was not much more than a brief holiday jaunt, visiting friends for slap-up meals ( how do you know how many times he got fed?), and sometimes sleeping peacefully under the stars. Being supplied with an 'extra blanket' (wow! luxury!).

You write "He spent at least three nights indoors, and quite possibly four. This was spring time and the temperatures were not harsh. When he did sleep outdoors, he slept among many trees and under their cover."

I see that Maryland's April temperature average 5.8C at night. April is known to be a month of rain. Have you ever slept 'among trees' for just one night ? There aint that much cover. How about riding and walking with one of your legs busted and (using that word you're so fond of) 'possibly' gangrenous for more than a week. I guess that American actors were a hardy breed in those days, rough and tough.

That bit about 10-12 inches of hair ? As far as I know, none of those that saw his body immediately after death referred to the length of his hair. And yet you keep quoting one person (out of several) that saw Booth's cadaver many years after death.

(Still waiting on the date of that dental chart)

I'm still waiting to hear who, after viewing the body, denied the body was Booth's and who recanted their testimony of identifying Booth's body.

(12-08-2018 04:16 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 02:23 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  In reviewing Dr. John Frederick May’s three statements on the appearance of the body on the Montauk, I noticed something that I had not noticed before: In his April 27 statement, given to Joseph Holt, Dr. May said that the body looked “much older” than Booth did when he saw him less than two years earlier:

Q. Do you recognize the body as that of J. Wilkes Booth from its general appearance, and also from the particular appearance of the scar?

A. I do recognize it, though it is very much altered since I saw J. Booth. It looks to me much older, and in appearance much more freckled than he was. I do not recall that he was at all freckled.


Now, what would have caused Booth to look “much older” at 26 than he looked at 24 or 25, less than two years earlier?

First of all: Booth was far from what you would call an outdoors man. Sleeping under the stars was definitely not his thing and being forced to do so had to be a shock to his body.

Most freckles are produced by exposure to ultraviolet sunlight (feel free to look it up). Booth was described as a man with 'porcelain' skin. Freckling is common for individuals with less-pigmented skin. So 10 days of exposure would easily cause this in Booth's case.

Secondly: Your description of his flight makes it sound like is was a walk in the park. He was forced to stay outdoors and walk with a broken leg for 10 days and be exposed to the elements for 24 hrs/day. If you had to endure this treatment, I'll bet it would age you at least 2years too.

You claimed: "When he did sleep outdoors, he slept among many trees and under their cover."

Have you ever camped or slept on bare ground in April? I have and I can assure you its not cozy. There aren't many trees with leaves at that time of year so there is very little shelter from the rain. The ground is still frozen just inches under your body and with nothing more than a blanket Booth must have had to drink heavily.

Most likely he didn't get a solid 8 hours sleep per night. He probably had to wait until sunrise to get warm enough to sleep. You say he was fed but he couldn't have been eating enough to make up for all the calories he was burning trying to keep warm and survive.

You also claimed: "Contrary to later mythology, Booth was not “half-starved” and “haggered” during his flight."

I know of nobody who actually witnessed Booth during his flight ever make an assertion like this. Feel free to correct me if wrong - I don't know how he couldn't be haggered and half starved.

You have hit every nail squarely on its head - but I suspect that our correspondent will just claim that all your statements are "silly." Despite coming full circle and ending up back at his first assertions, it appears that our efforts to explain away his claims will never suffice. Like many folks, he thinks he's in the spotlight and loves it. See the postings about Eisenschiml that I made yesterday. It's all about attention and fame -- historical fact be d---ed.

(12-08-2018 03:39 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 02:23 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  The Garretts fed him.

I was sure surprised to see that you wrote this, Mike. Are you finally admitting it was Booth, not Boyd (or another Booth imposter), at Garrett's?

I should have specified that I was talking about the official version of Booth's flight, part of which is probably true and part of which is almost certainly false. No, I don't believe Booth was at Garrett's farm, but I was assuming that for the sake of argument, as if to say that even according to the official version of Booth's flight, he was not "half-starved," etc., etc.

(12-08-2018 07:21 PM)L Verge Wrote:  You have hit every nail squarely on its head - but I suspect that our correspondent will just claim that all your statements are "silly." Despite coming full circle and ending up back at his first assertions, it appears that our efforts to explain away his claims will never suffice.

It seems to me that he's suffering from 'smartest guy in the room' syndrome. Its a tough condition to overcome since he can never admit a mistake - so everyone else must be stupid.

I half-expected him to state that Booth was not only hale and hearty but sung 'Zipadee Doo dah' on his stroll through the South. I guess he couldn't find a quote from Uncle Remus to back him.

(12-10-2018 01:26 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  It seems to me that he's suffering from 'smartest guy in the room' syndrome.

That happened to me once, it was short lived.
My wife walked back into the room.

(12-08-2018 04:16 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  First of all: Booth was far from what you would call an outdoors man. Sleeping under the stars was definitely not his thing and being forced to do so had to be a shock to his body.

This does not address the points I made on this issue. Booth had extra blankets, thanks to Cox. He slept under the cover of trees when he was outdoors. He spent at least three nights of his flight indoors. By all accounts, he was never even close to being "half-starved." He ate at Mudd's house. Cox fed him. Jones brought him food every day when he was hiding near Cox's house, and Jones also bought him a meal before he helped him cross the river. The Rollins fed him.

(12-08-2018 04:16 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  Most freckles are produced by exposure to ultraviolet sunlight (feel free to look it up). Booth was described as a man with 'porcelain' skin. Freckling is common for individuals with less-pigmented skin. So 10 days of exposure would easily cause this in Booth's case.

Sorry, but this dog won't even get out of the yard. As I've mentioned before, I spent 21 years in the Army and did two training tours in the Mojave Desert in California, where my fellow soldiers and I were truly "exposed" to intense sunlight for weeks at a time, and I never once saw anyone sprout freckles. I didn't sprout freckles either, and I have baby-white skin.

Yes, sunlight can cause a type of burn freckling if the exposure is intense and prolonged. Nothing of the kind could have happened to Booth in late April in Maryland and Virginia. And, I would again note that for most of the time when Booth had to stay outdoors, he was staying among a thick forest near Cox's house. So the sunlight-caused-freckles dog just won't hunt.

(12-08-2018 04:16 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  Secondly: Your description of his flight makes it sound like is was a walk in the park. He was forced to stay outdoors and walk with a broken leg for 10 days and be exposed to the elements for 24 hrs/day. If you had to endure this treatment, I'll bet it would age you at least 2 years too.

You are again simply ignoring the facts I cited in my reply. He was not "exposed to the elements for 24 hrs/day." That is demonstrably false. Go read Thomas Jones' long account of his time helping Booth for four days. Booth was in the shade among a thick forest. Jones brought him food every day. He was not even remotely exposed to sunlight long enough to cause freckling.

(12-08-2018 04:16 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  You claimed: "When he did sleep outdoors, he slept among many trees and under their cover."

Have you ever camped or slept on bare ground in April? I have and I can assure you its not cozy. There aren't many trees with leaves at that time of year so there is very little shelter from the rain. The ground is still frozen just inches under your body and with nothing more than a blanket Booth must have had to drink heavily.

What????!!! I live in Northern Virginia, not very far from Booth's escape route, and there most certainly are leaves on the trees in late April! Go read Jones' description of the heavily wooded area near Cox's house where Booth stayed for a few days.

No, the ground would not have been "frozen" beneath Booth in late April. That is erroneous. My church does campouts in April and May because the weather is mild, not too hot and not too cold.

And I would again point out that Cox gave Booth extra blankets. You keep ignoring this fact. Go read Jones' account.

(12-08-2018 04:16 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  Most likely he didn't get a solid 8 hours sleep per night. He probably had to wait until sunrise to get warm enough to sleep. You say he was fed but he couldn't have been eating enough to make up for all the calories he was burning trying to keep warm and survive.

More erroneous and baseless speculation. It was not that cold. It does not get that cold in April in southern Maryland and central Virginia. He had extra blankets. He got fed every day. See also above.

(12-08-2018 04:16 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  You also claimed: "Contrary to later mythology, Booth was not “half-starved” and “haggered” during his flight."

I know of nobody who actually witnessed Booth during his flight ever make an assertion like this. Feel free to correct me if wrong - I don't know how he couldn't be haggered and half starved.

You are yet again just ignoring evidence that I've presented. When Conger showed Rollins pics of Booth less than 48 hours before the barn shooting, Rollins had no problem identifying Booth as the man he had seen on crutches. The only difference Rollins noted was that the man on crutches had no mustache.

How about you quote me one person who saw Booth during this period who said he looked "half-starved"? None of the CSA soldiers who saw Booth 48 hours before he was allegedly shot said anything about him looking "half-starved" or that his face looked "sunken," etc., etc. Jett didn't. Ruggles didn't. The Rollins didn't.

And, if you believe that Booth was the James W. Boyd who was at Garrett's farm, no member of the Garrett family said that Boyd looked "half-starved" or "corpse-like" or "sunken face," etc., etc. By the way, if Boyd was really Booth, then Booth got fed several times by the Garretts, spent his first night there sharing a room with one of Garrett's sons, and spent the next night in the barn.

As for how long Booth was on the run, his flight began late at night on April 14 and ended when he supposedly arrived at the Garrett farm, where he was fed and sheltered and where he spent many hours relaxing and socializing with the family. So in reality, his "flight" ended when he supposedly arrived at the Garrett farm at around 3:00 PM on April 24. Thus, he was in flight from 10:00 PM on April 14 until 3:00 PM on April 24. Do the math: that is 233 hours, or just under 10 24-hour periods. Using calendar days in this case is a bit misleading, since his flight began so late on the 14th and ended in mid-afternoon on the 24th.

Go read the accounts of Boyd at the Garrett farm. He spent many hours relaxing and lounging around, hardly what one would call "flight," much less "harsh conditions."

By the way, James W. Boyd was 41, i.e., 15 years older than Booth! Now, my, my, my, what a staggering, whopping "coincidence"! Mudd said the body looked "much older" than Booth looked less than two years earlier. We also know that Boyd was on crutches! Wow, another cosmic "coincidence," hey?

Why have we changed from 'on the run' to 'flight' ? So that the 'flight' could be said to have ended on arrival at the Garrett farm?

If he'd escaped from the barn and managed to remain at large for another 5 days would you be saying that his "flight" lasted 15 days (ignoring the time spent at Garretts Farm) ?

Nice try, Mike.

"As for how long Booth was on the run, his flight began late at night on April 14 and ended when he supposedly arrived at the Garrett farm, where he was fed and sheltered and where he spent many hours relaxing and socializing with the family. So in reality, his "flight" ended when he supposedly arrived at the Garrett farm at around 3:00 PM on April 24. Thus, he was in flight from 10:00 PM on April 14 until 3:00 PM on April 24. Do the math: that is 233 hours, or just under 10 24-hour periods. Using calendar days in this case is a bit misleading, since his flight began so late on the 14th and ended in mid-afternoon on the 24th.

Go read the accounts of Boyd at the Garrett farm. He spent many hours relaxing and lounging around, hardly what one would call "flight," much less "harsh conditions."

By the way, James W. Boyd was 41, i.e., 15 years older than Booth! Now, my, my, my, what a staggering, whopping "coincidence"! Mudd said the body looked "much older" than Booth looked less than two years earlier. We also know that Boyd was on crutches! Wow, another cosmic "coincidence," hey?"



Mr Griffith, you are getting so nit-picking here that it appears you will use any verbal trick to try and get your audience to believe you. As for how many days the fugitives were on the run - give me a break, and also consider the "flight" they made into the woods at Garrett's place when Bainbridge and Ruggles rode back to warn them of troopers landing in Port Royal. Booth certainly wasn't calm and relaxed then.

You are also confusing yourself by all these stretches of the facts. In the above posting you refer to Mudd describing the body instead of Dr. May -- or did I miss something?

How do we know that Boyd was on crutches? Did they send your so-called doppelganger out of Old Capitol Prison on crutches?

BTW: Are you really Nate Orlowek writing under a pseudonym? I am also wondering if you work at the LOC since you appear to have very easy access to some rather scarce books -- ones that some of us have spent a lot of time and money acquiring??? More needs to be revealed...

(12-10-2018 05:36 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  Why have we changed from 'on the run' to 'flight' ? So that the 'flight' could be said to have ended on arrival at the Garrett farm?

If he'd escaped from the barn and managed to remain at large for another 5 days would you be saying that his "flight" lasted 15 days (ignoring the time spent at Garretts Farm)? Nice try, Mike.

So, assuming for the sake of argument that James Boyd was really Booth, you are saying that his time at the Garrett farm constituted "flight/being on the run"? How so? He did little else but eat, sleep, relax, and socialize while at the Garrett house.

According to your version, Booth's "flight/run" ended when he arrived at the Garrett house since he was supposedly trapped and killed there.

If you really wanna count his alleged time with the Garretts as part of his flight, then this severely torpedoes the already untenable claim that the body on the Montauk really was Booth but looked so unlike Booth due to the allegedly brutal, harsh conditions he had undergone during his flight. His alleged stay with the Garretts was anything but harsh: He was well fed, spent the vast majority of his waking hours relaxing and socializing, slept in the Garrett house the first night, and slept in the barn the second night.

And, again, none of the Garretts described Boyd as looking half-starved, sunken-faced, etc., etc.

"you are saying that his time at the Garrett farm constituted "flight/being on the run"? How so? "

How so? Simple. He hadn't been captured until he left that barn.