"Barnes turned away Col. Cobb, a longtime friend of Booth’s who came to ID the body, because he did not want Cobb to see the body."

Col. Cobb ? That would be the Colonel Clarence Cobb about whom you couldnt provide any details?

And the dental chart ... could you tell us its date ? Maybe even let us know where it can be seen? I've asked before but you've ignored me. I'm not just being awkward ... that 'chart' could have been last updated 3 or 4 years earlier. There may have been changes to Booth's teeth. He could have been to see another dentist after that chart was prepared.


All I can see from internet searches is that 'A dentist was not present but Sexton Weaver produced a dental chart. Charles Bishop, an actor who asked permission to view the body, looked in the mouth of the corpse, identified only one filled tooth and pointed it out to all in attendance.' (John Wilkes Booth: Beyond The Grave, WC Jameson, Page 156).

So we have Sexton Weaver (who is ? I dont know except that he isnt a dentist) turning up with a dental chart (we dont know where he got it from , nor what happened to it afterwards) who arranges for an actor to look into the body's mouth ( was Weaver too squeamish ?). The actor says , words to the effect, "Yep ... there's your plugged tooth. See?" We dont know of course if another person looking in would have said " Yep ... but woah ... see there's another one over there too."

(Oh, and apparently someone ... the actor, Mr Bishop ? ... counted the number of missing teeth ... and this was confirmed by ... ? )

Sexton Weaver refers to John H. Weaver, who was sexton at Christ Church in Baltimore and an undertaker in the old Exeter Street neighborhood of the Booth family. President Andrew Johnson instructed the War Department in February of 1869 to turn over Booth's body to Weaver for reburial in Green Mount Cemetery. In turn, Weaver arranged with the Washington firm of Harvey and Marr to receive the body from the Arsenal and hold it until arrangements could be made to transport it to Baltimore.

Harvey and Marr's establishment was adjacent to Ford's Theatre, and ironically, the remains of Booth were stored in a shed in Baptist Alley that had once served as the stable for Booth's horse. Joseph Adrian Booth was present to oversee the D.C. portion of receiving and identifying the body and getting it shipped on to Baltimore.

In Baltimore, the body was met by John T. Ford, Mary Ann Booth, Rosalie Booth, Joseph Booth, Charles Bishop, John H. Weaver, and Harry Clay Ford -- all of them knew Wilkes intimately. The skull, hair, teeth, and legs were all examined closely. Even the old shoe on the broken leg and the matching high-riding boot to the one taken at Mudd's were included. Later that night, John T. Ford wired Edwin Booth in New York, "Successful and in our possession." That telegram was saved, and on the reverse are the penciled words "John's body." That telegram is now in the collection at Edwin's famous Players' Club in NYC.

Over the next few days, others who knew Booth were allowed to view the body. Ed Steers enumerates them in Blood on the Moon. A total of 19 people viewed the remains before its re-interment in Green Mount, and all agreed that it was Booth -- including Basil Moxley, who 34 years later would recant his positive identification, despite being a pallbearer on June 26, when the body of JWB was taken from the Weaver holding vault in Green Mount to the Booth plot that Mary Ann had bought for her husband and family.

The only reason for Moxley having changed his mind after so long period appears to be that it was 1903 when he decided to speak up and Finis Bates's book had just hit the American public. Several others who had viewed the body in 1869 spoke up to declare (in nice terms) that Moxley was lying. One of those was a Baltimore photographer, Joseph T. Lowery, who stated, "There was not the slightest doubt in my mind that the face of the dead man I looked upon was that of the actor, whom I had seen many times in life. The features were the same, although considerably sunken. His dark hair, which was remarkably thick and curly, was well preserved." It appears that Moxley wanted a little notoriety (and money) himself!?

In conclusion, in his research, Steers carefully examined Herold's account of what happened in the Garrett barn -- and points out that in the course of that examination, the fugitive specifically mentioned Booth by name nine times. "As I turned round, I heard a pistol shot, looked round and saw one corner of the barn in a light blaze. They jerked the barn door open. Booth was lying there." [Voluntary Statement of David E. Herold Made Before the Honorable John A. Bingham, Special Judge Advocate on the 27th Day of April, 1865 On Board the Monitor "Montauk" Lying Off the Navy Yard, Washington D.C. NARA, M-599, reel4, frames 0442-0485]

Further information is also given in Steers's summary of the stick pin from Dan Bryant found on Booth's underwear (and mentioned here with no response from Mr. Griffith) as well as the bank draft found on the body in the amount of 61 pounds, 12 shillings, 10 pence and made out to "John Wilkes Booth." This was subsequently identified at the Conspiracy Trial by Canadian banker, Robert Anson Campbell, who was the one who had personally handed the draft to Booth in 1864.

Thank you, Ed Steers, for making it easy to find the tools we need to keep speaking the truth in the face of non-believers.

Mike Griffith wrote: "Let’s go back to Occam’s Razor..."

and

"Luther Baker did not take off with the man in the barn’s body for several hours for no reason. The Booth-escaped theory does not require us to ignore this bizarre, extremely suspicious event. Rather, we can plausibly theorize that Baker had a very important reason for taking off with the body: to change the clothing, to break the body’s left fibula near the ankle, to slightly burn the back of the body’s neck if necessary (unless the body happened to have a scar on the back of its neck), and possibly to write the initials JWB on one of the hands."

That's an example of Occam's Razor?

(12-14-2018 02:39 PM)Warren Wrote:  Mike Griffith wrote: "Let’s go back to Occam’s Razor..."

and

"Luther Baker did not take off with the man in the barn’s body for several hours for no reason. The Booth-escaped theory does not require us to ignore this bizarre, extremely suspicious event. Rather, we can plausibly theorize that Baker had a very important reason for taking off with the body: to change the clothing, to break the body’s left fibula near the ankle, to slightly burn the back of the body’s neck if necessary (unless the body happened to have a scar on the back of its neck), and possibly to write the initials JWB on one of the hands."

That's an example of Occam's Razor?

Perhaps to someone who does not understand the principle of Occam's Razor...

I ask myself why I continue to respond to his posts; we will never convince him of any truths and facts. However, the old history teacher in me just wants to pray that those who have an interest building up in the Lincoln assassination story will not be taken in by the blarney that is being posted by our theorist.

As you may have guessed, I am not the silent majority that sits quietly while incorrect information is given. Ignoring things does not make them go away.

For about a year and a half, I researched the question of just how the rewards were distributed. I read as much material as was available. I traveled to various archives and searched through papers that hadn't been looked at in years. My article was subjected to peer review from two experts in the field before it was accepted for publication. While I would never claim that what I've written is the final word on the subject, I know a heck of a lot more about this than either Mr. Griffith or Dr. Arnold.

Quote:Lafayette Baker specified that the officer who would lead the 25-man detail had to be an officer who was “discrete” because he knew that this officer would see things that would need to be kept secret. That officer, Doherty, got a handsome reward and an immediate promotion because he “kept his mouth shut,” as Lafayette Baker ordered him to do after he returned.

Only problem with this is that Lafayette Baker didn't put Edward P. Doherty in charge of the expedition. He put Everton Conger in charge. By his own testimony, and the battle that ensued between Doherty and the NDP operatives, he said as much. Also, Doherty's "handsome" reward was far less than the $15,000 that Conger received. While $5,250 was nothing to sneeze at (it's about $90,000 in today's money) that doesn't compare to the $255,000 in today's money that Conger received. Also, Doherty's promotion happened before the capture took place. As Steve Miller has written, Doherty's captain's bars were waiting for him when he returned from Virginia.

Quote:The Booth-escaped theory enables us to understand why Luther Baker was never called on to explain under oath and/or for the record why he took off with the body for at least three hours. It also explains why Baker’s sworn statement was “lost” and why he was never asked to testify at the conspiracy trial.

Byron Baker was forever ticked off because he only received $3,000 of the reward money. Byron claimed that his statement was lost to deny him what he considered a proper share of the reward money even though it was in the Adjutant General's files next to Conger's statement. He was never called to testify at the conspiracy trial because Doherty and Conger were and his testimony was not needed. As for his "three hour tour" I think Warren pretty much nailed it.

Quote:Lafayette Baker also stood to make a handsome penny if the troop detail that he sent out was the one that found “Booth.

Lafayette Baker made $3,750.

No one who had any immediate role in the capture of Booth determined how the reward money was distributed.

No matter how hard people want to try, you can't argue with facts.

Best
Rob

(12-14-2018 02:39 PM)Warren Wrote:  Mike Griffith wrote: "Let’s go back to Occam’s Razor..."

and

"Luther Baker did not take off with the man in the barn’s body for several hours for no reason. The Booth-escaped theory does not require us to ignore this bizarre, extremely suspicious event. Rather, we can plausibly theorize that Baker had a very important reason for taking off with the body: to change the clothing, to break the body’s left fibula near the ankle, to slightly burn the back of the body’s neck if necessary (unless the body happened to have a scar on the back of its neck), and possibly to write the initials JWB on one of the hands."

That's an example of Occam's Razor?

The fact that Baker's cavalry had been in their saddles for over 20 hours that day is a better Occam's Razor answer.

(12-14-2018 01:05 AM)AussieMick Wrote:  "Barnes turned away Col. Cobb, a longtime friend of Booth’s who came to ID the body, because he did not want Cobb to see the body."

Col. Cobb ? That would be the Colonel Clarence Cobb about whom you couldnt provide any details?

And the dental chart ... could you tell us its date ? Maybe even let us know where it can be seen? I've asked before but you've ignored me. I'm not just being awkward ... that 'chart' could have been last updated 3 or 4 years earlier. There may have been changes to Booth's teeth. He could have been to see another dentist after that chart was prepared.


All I can see from internet searches is that 'A dentist was not present but Sexton Weaver produced a dental chart. Charles Bishop, an actor who asked permission to view the body, looked in the mouth of the corpse, identified only one filled tooth and pointed it out to all in attendance.' (John Wilkes Booth: Beyond The Grave, WC Jameson, Page 156).

So we have Sexton Weaver (who is ? I dont know except that he isnt a dentist) turning up with a dental chart (we dont know where he got it from , nor what happened to it afterwards) who arranges for an actor to look into the body's mouth ( was Weaver too squeamish ?). The actor says , words to the effect, "Yep ... there's your plugged tooth. See?" We dont know of course if another person looking in would have said " Yep ... but woah ... see there's another one over there too."

(Oh, and apparently someone ... the actor, Mr Bishop ? ... counted the number of missing teeth ... and this was confirmed by ... ? )

I have been trying to follow up on the dentist and dental records because I know that master detective John C. Brennan was researching this back in the 1980s. I remember the name Merrill, but nothing else. I have a feeling that the dentist was from either Baltimore or Washington since the records seem easy to obtain, but why no mention is made of him being on site for the prying open makes no sense.

Mr. Brennan was a fantastic soul and part of our gang that Mr. Hall dubbed his "Baker Street Irregulars" ( a la Sherlock Holmes) -- Brennan was Mr. Watson in that analogy.

---

(12-14-2018 05:06 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 02:39 PM)Warren Wrote:  Mike Griffith wrote: "Let’s go back to Occam’s Razor..."

and

"Luther Baker did not take off with the man in the barn’s body for several hours for no reason. The Booth-escaped theory does not require us to ignore this bizarre, extremely suspicious event. Rather, we can plausibly theorize that Baker had a very important reason for taking off with the body: to change the clothing, to break the body’s left fibula near the ankle, to slightly burn the back of the body’s neck if necessary (unless the body happened to have a scar on the back of its neck), and possibly to write the initials JWB on one of the hands."

That's an example of Occam's Razor?

The fact that Baker's cavalry had been in their saddles for over 20 hours that day is a better Occam's Razor answer.

On the banks of the Rappahannock River in what used to be Port Conway, Virginia, is a beautiful, restored mansion that had been built before the war on the plantation that was home to what became part of the Madison family -- as in James Madison, who was born in an earlier home on the property. Port Conway was named for the family of James's mother. The house is called Belle Grove, and you can Google it - just make sure that you read about the Belle Grove in King George County because there is another Belle Grove in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia that belonged to Madison's sister.

When the Garrett's Farm Patrol reached the river, they took a break because they were so tired. Their commander, Everton Conger (whom Rob could/should write a book about), was suffering from the effects of numerous war injuries. How he managed to stay in a saddle is amazing. He took his much-needed rest inside the mansion and several other officers stretched out in the hallway. Then it was back in the saddle, a chat with folks at the ferry, and a mad dash to Bowling Green to find Willie Jett.

BTW: Everton Conger's brother was in the U.S. Congress after the war, and Clara Barton went to him for help in getting the American Red Cross going. He sort of dismissed her until she casually mentioned that she had nursed his brother Everton during one of his critical injuries when he likely would have died. She got assistance. Another example of "six degrees of separation" that wanders through the whole Lincoln assassination story. Mike Kauffman was always going to write a book on those degrees.

Wrong date on Booth's re-interment, but interesting comment on jaw malformation (from dental forensic source):

Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States, was shot dead on April 14th, 1865. John Wilkes Booth shot the president and escaped to Virginia. The US Calvary surrounded the barn and set in on fire. Booth was shot dead at the spot. But after many years, the rumors spread that Booth was escaped and was still alive. So the body was disinterred and examined again in 1893. The family dentist identified Booth body by the peculiar formation of the jaw that has been noted in the dental records made by the dentist during a dental visit for restoration of a filling.[17]

Another source that uses almost the same wording (and error) says that the dentist was the family's dentist, which would lead to the possibility of a Baltimore-based practitioner.

---

If you want to wade through the 192 pages of the FBI report on Booth's diary, go here. https://vault.fbi.gov/john-wilkes-booth/...of-01/view Redacting on much of it will drive you crazy, and you can actually skip to about the last 20 pages and save time because those are the official findings.

P.S. Despite the redacting, I was able to find one letter that I'm sure was written by John C. Brennan and another by James O. Hall. Both are trying to impress the FBI with the importance of doing a complete and thorough examination with the best of means available in the 1970s.

Quote:Their commander, Everton Conger (whom Rob could/should write a book about), was suffering from the effects of numerous war injuries.

Unfortunately, there's not enough archival material out there to do justice to the subject, although I do toy with it once in a while.

I found something just now, however, that's too good not to share. It has nothing to do with Conger. I am going through some of the papers of Albert J. Beveridge from the Library of Congress. My next Tarbell article will be a comparison between Tarbell and Beveridge. In March of 1923, speaking of another Lincoln author to William Herndon's writing partner, Jesse Weik, Beveridge, who had a rather acidic tongue, said, "I suspect that he is one of that curious class who starts out with a theory and tries to find something to sustain the theory, refusing all facts that conflict with it."

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Best
Rob

Rob, I’ve been guilty of the forced theory all my life but am trying to change.

Good luck with Ida. I can’t even imagine trying to tackle her.

---

Oh, and useless fact of the day; our tenth President still has living grandchildren.

(12-14-2018 06:46 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I have been trying to follow up on the dentist and dental records because I know that master detective John C. Brennan was researching this back in the 1980s. I remember the name Merrill, but nothing else. I have a feeling that the dentist was from either Baltimore or Washington since the records seem easy to obtain, but why no mention is made of him being on site for the prying open makes no sense.

Laurie, I do not know if this is accurate or whether it will help track him down, but I have a file that says Merrill's office was at 344 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington. Unfortunately I did not record where I read that information.

(12-15-2018 05:05 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(12-14-2018 06:46 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I have been trying to follow up on the dentist and dental records because I know that master detective John C. Brennan was researching this back in the 1980s. I remember the name Merrill, but nothing else. I have a feeling that the dentist was from either Baltimore or Washington since the records seem easy to obtain, but why no mention is made of him being on site for the prying open makes no sense.

Laurie, I do not know if this is accurate or whether it will help track him down, but I have a file that says Merrill's office was at 344 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington. Unfortunately I did not record where I read that information.

Roger, I see this link has the dentist's address ...
http://www.histoire-medecine.fr/histoire...-booth.php
"As for Booth’s dentist (Hyson, 2001), Dr. William Merrill (whose office was at 344 Pennsylvania Avenue), he had cured and filled two teeth with gold for Booth shortly before the assassination. After prying open the corpse’s mouth, he positively identified his two fillings."

Might be useful to access 'The mystery of John Wilkes Booth's dentist' by J. Hyson, M. Kauffman (its a research article ... I cannot access) ... but maybe that's been mentioned before on this forum.

(BTW, I see various sources say that it was Dr Merrill that pried open the corpse's mouth ... strange that I previously hit on one source that said it was Sexton Weaver ...
and on another point, I see that Jameson's Beyond The Grave refers to Clarence E Cobb being turned away by Surgeon General Barnes because 'the committee' had seen two fillings. So, I'm guessing this is the source of Mike's Clarence E Cobb, although Cobb is not referred to as a Colonel and the book says General G.W. Brice asked Cobb to go to the Montauk ... but I cannot locate a General G.W. Brice on the internet ! I'm thinking Laurie was right about the quality of "Beyond The Grave".)

Someone noted that Dr. May never said the body was not Booth, that he always claimed to have identified the body as Booth, as if somehow this settles the matter. If that is the standard, then why does not the fact that Dr. Mudd always solemnly swore that he did not recognize Booth when Booth stayed at his house with a broken ankle settle the matter?

First off, in point of fact, Dr. May did not always identify the body as Booth. By Dr. May’s own admission in his 1887 article, when he first saw the body on the Montauk, he insisted that it bore no resemblance to Booth and that he could not believe it was Booth. Dr. May’s statement is supported by Lawrence Gardner, who said the following in his 1891 article:

On removing the tarpaulin from the body, we were all struck by the lack of any resemblance to Booth. We had a number of photographs [of Booth] with us and endeavored by comparison to find a likeness between the photographs and the body, but there was no resemblance.

Now this is very odd, because when Conger/Baker showed Rollins a photo of Booth less than 48 hours before the barn shooting, Rollins readily identified the man in the photo as the man he had seen on crutches, with the one qualification that the man on crutches had no mustache.

In any case, the point I want to make is that you just cannot take a witness’s word on a central claim and ignore contradictory and problematic elements in the rest of his testimony that refute that claim.

For example, suppose that Joe Blow testifies that he got a very good look at John Doe from only a few feet away while John Doe was waiting at a crosswalk to cross the street, but then Joe Blow gives a description of John Doe that does not match John Doe’s appearance in key ways. Suppose Joe Blow says John Doe had a clear complexion, but John Doe was known to be heavily freckled. Suppose Joe Blow says John Doe looked like he was in his mid-20s, but John Doe was actually in his early 40s. Suppose Joe Blow describes John Doe’s facial hair in a way that contradicts what several other witnesses said it looked like. Suppose Joe Blow says John Doe’s appearance had changed drastically from the last time he saw him, but then insists that he still recognized him from his “general appearance” and by a large scar on the back of his neck. Any sane jury would have grave doubts that Joe Blow had really seen John Doe; they would seriously doubt that the man Joe Blow had seen was really John Doe.

Theodore Roscoe, a highly regarded scholar in his day and the author of several widely acclaimed books on historical events, studied the original handwritten transcript of Dr. May’s April 27 testimony and noticed that the transcript indicates that Dr. May was stumbling over his words after Holt asked him if he was certain he could identify the body apart from its general appearance. In Dr. May’s short, one-paragraph response, there are three cases where words were crossed out and either written over or rewritten (The Web of Conspiracy, Prentice-Hall, 1959, p. 422). “The result,” notes Roscoe, “is a garbled paragraph, as though May is sputtering uncertainly” (p. 423).

"...then why does not the fact that Dr. Mudd always solemnly swore that he did not recognize Booth when Booth stayed at his house with a broken ankle settle the matter?"

Mr. Griffith - You are obviously not aware of the copy of Jones's book that once belonged to Samuel Cox, Jr. In the post-war years, after Dr. Mudd had been "rehabilitated" at Ft. Jefferson, he ran for public office in Maryland against Cox, Jr. In campaigning, they sometimes rode from one place to another together. It was during this time that Cox recorded snippets of their conversation and later wrote memories in the margins of the Jones book. The most telling of these is a comment that Mudd confessed to Cox that he knew who Booth was while the assassin was at his house. This corroborates the story Mudd told on board the ship that carried him and the others to Florida.

While I still like Roscoe's book, its research is certainly outdated. Setting that aside, however, if I had been summoned out of the clear blue sky to hustle down to the Navy Yard and identify the corpse of a man that I had not seen for two years and whom I did not know all that well anyhow, I would be hesitant and sputtering also as I wrote out a sort of affidavit confirming my opinion that the body was that of Booth - a statement that would be a crucial point in future history - and I am writing it out in front of one of the most powerful men in government at that time.

Also, don't try to insert a "sane" civil jury into this matter. You are dealing with the complex workings of military justice and at a time when the unthinkable had just occurred and speed and vengeance was necessary in the minds of the majority of those in control and of the majority of at least the Northern populace. Like many other well-read folks, I doubt seriously that a civil court could have been convened or could have acted strictly in accordance with procedure under these circumstances. A civil court certainly failed twice in 1867 with John Surratt. While the prosecution was not at its best in the 1867 trial, those pesky Southern sympathizers on the jury were still licking their wounds and not sacrificing another nice, young, Southern, white man.

You can also strike your next-to-the-last paragraph because it proves nothing except that you are stretching and speculating to try and save your "sputtering" theories.

---

Mr. Griffith - Last night, I posted the link for the 192 pages of the FBI's report on their findings regarding the Booth "diary." Based on what you just claimed above, you have obviously not read the precise summation of their findings near the end. It just does not mesh with your version. You might also want to read the posting about the dental forensics that AussieMick posted.

As for the identification in that last forensic report, I have seen Hyson cited several times, but I don't recall that Mike Kauffman's name was in the citations also. It makes sense since Mike and John C. Brennan were very close and shared much research. Brennan was the one that I knew was working on finding Dr, Merrill - didn't know that an address was given, so this sends us to an 1864 or 65 city directory for D.C. Knowing Brennan and Mike, they already confirmed Merrill at that address, however.

Now, my kingdom for a copy of that Hyson/Kauffman article...

(12-13-2018 09:05 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  * Luther Baker did not take off with the man in the barn’s body for several hours for no reason. The Booth-escaped theory does not require us to ignore this bizarre, extremely suspicious event. Rather, we can plausibly theorize that Baker had a very important reason for taking off with the body: to change the clothing, to break the body’s left fibula near the ankle, to slightly burn the back of the body’s neck if necessary (unless the body happened to have a scar on the back of its neck), and possibly to write the initials JWB on one of the hands.

I have a medical question. After examining the body on the Montauk, Dr. Barnes wrote Stanton as follows:

"The left leg and foot were encased in an appliance of splints and bandages, upon the removal of which, a fracture of the fibula (small bone of the leg) 3 inches above the ankle joint, accompanied by considerable ecchymosis, was discovered."

My question - if the break to the fibula occurred after the body was already dead would ecchymosis appear at all? Would it appear to the doctor exactly the same as if the injury had taken place 13 days previous (to a live person) as opposed to a matter of hours (to a person already dead)?

Wouldn't there be a big difference on how the two wounds would look to a doctor?