Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

John E. · 05-30-2013, 11:37 AM

Every now and then a discovery gets made that can't be suppressed or selfishly withheld from the public in order to help sell a book.

I've been across the country from Andersonville, GA to Harrisburg, PA and all the way to the middle of the Gulf of Mexico in search of new discoveries that will help forward Lincoln assassination studies. Most of the time, I've come up short but at least I know I checked and can cross things off my list of unknowns.

Recently, the research Gods threw me a bone and practically rewarded me for my past efforts and time. While searching for eyewitness accounts of John Wilkes Booth's burial, I discovered a newspaper article that has been hidden and/or overlooked by researchers for nearly 125 years.

The article definitively answers the question "Where is the John Wilkes Booth autopsy photo?"

In the following days, a press release will be issued detailing this latest discovery but we'd like to share it with you here first. We will also be selling a supplement, similar to our two others, that will provide more details, interesting tidbits and supporting evidence of our new find.

EXCITING DISCOVERY:

In 1891, a story was printed in a major newspaper stating that a Rev. Armstrong of Atlanta was believed by many to be John Wilkes Booth. Not only did he look like the actor, Booth's brother Edwin often visited and spent time with him.

In response to this article, an eyewitness to Booth's autopsy stepped forward and denounced the silly claim by stating undeniably that John Wilkes Booth was dead. The eyewitness was none other than Lawrence Gardner, the son of Alexander Gardner.

As an aside, Lawrence Gardner stated the following:

"The object of my father’s visit to the Monitor was photography, and the body in question was to be the subject. Did we take a picture? No. After everything had been prepared Gen. Eckert concluded that inasmuch as there was so little likeness in the remains to the photograph in existence of Booth, perhaps it would be best not to make the picture, and the plan was abandoned for that reason."

Other than a statement made by Alexander Gardner himself, there can be no better source than his son, to definitively say what happened to the Booth autopsy photo.

Lawrence Gardner was only 17 when he assisted his father on the Montauk. He would later go on to have a very successful career in politics and was a well respected, prominent citizen of Washington D.C. At the time he made his statement regarding the Booth autopsy, he was 42 years old and of sound mind.

Among the other revelations in the article, Gardner claims that Booth's tattoo was surrounded by a wreath of stars. Lawrence's involvement also challenges Osbon Oldroyd's claim that Timothy O'Sullivan was Alex Gardner's assistant at the Navy Yard.

I've been asked by a couple of people if I am disappointed there is no photo to be found. Truthfully, I was beginning to doubt that it ever existed and this article supported my beliefs.

For the past few months Barry and I had been looking further in to this area and we both started doubting and challenging quite a few things that supposedly occurred on the Montauk.

We will continue to look for amazing new discoveries to share with you all in the future. For the time being, thanks again for all your support. We sincerely appreciate it.

John

Gene C · 05-30-2013, 12:27 PM

I can almost here it now. "If it was Booth, they would have taken his photo to prove it. No photo means it wasn't Booth killed at Garrett's."

Dave Taylor · (This post was last modified: 05-30-2013 12:41 PM by Dave Taylor.)

Sadly, this is what I thought the news would be - evidence that there was no photo. I already knew your opinion, John, of whether or not a photograph was actually taken and i figured you found solid evidence to support it. Still, it didn't keep me from fantasizing that you actually found a photo. Nevertheless, great detective work, John!

(05-30-2013 12:27 PM)Gene C Wrote: I can almost here it now. "If it was Booth, they would have taken his photo to prove it. No photo means it wasn't Booth killed at Garrett's."

Agreed, Gene. Escape theorists are going to love this news.

Just to cross some t's and dot some i's, John, is there period evidence of Lawrence Gardner on the monitors? Is there support for his claim of being there beyond his 1891 statement?

barryssentials · 05-30-2013, 12:49 PM

This is going to create some great debate. I'm really looking forward to hearing everyone's opinions.
For those of you who love research, your brain will start to see other avenues to look into now that this disclosure discredits the Wardell letter and O'Sullivan's presence on the Montauk that day (both promoted by Mark Katz' book). Who knows what will be found now if people aren't mentally restricted by the strong evidence presented in Wardell's letter. Can't wait to see what people come up with.
Barry

Laurie Verge · 05-30-2013, 12:58 PM

I believe I'm correct that, since the publication of Mark Katz's book, there has been some question as to whether or not James Wardell even existed?

RJNorton · 05-30-2013, 01:00 PM

(05-30-2013 12:58 PM)Laurie Verge Wrote: there has been some question as to whether or not James Wardell even existed?

Where's Andrew Giles Potter when we need him!

wsanto · 05-30-2013, 01:07 PM

Although I am inclined to believe there is no photograph based on this new evidence, there is still some room to challenge it.

First- There is a contradiction. Why was Lawrence Gardiner sure that Rev. Anderson was not Booth when, as an aside, he admits that no photogragh was taken abourd the Montouk because the deceased did not resemble known photograghs of Booth enough to warrant such documentation as proof that Booth was dead?

Second-- (and this gets thrown around a lot so I'll toss it out there) His recollection is more than twenty-five years old. Why can we be sure his memory is factual?

LincolnMan · 05-30-2013, 02:22 PM

I too am disappointed that, apparently, there is no photo-and maybe there never was. It strikes me as somewhat odd that Gardner was working under the order of Stanton to take the photo. You mean to say he disobeyed Stanton? Wouldn't it have been better to take the photo anyway and let Stanton decide its outcome. So did Eckert make the decision to not take the photo without speaking to his Superior about it?

Joe Di Cola · 05-30-2013, 02:35 PM

OMG! (The tweet thing on the Gettysburg Address sort of got to me--sorry!) Does this mean that O'Reilly and his amanuensis will now release Killing Booth, including how he got away?! Aaaaaargh!

John E. · (This post was last modified: 05-30-2013 03:15 PM by John E..)

(05-30-2013 12:29 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote: Just to cross some t's and dot some i's, John, is there period evidence of Lawrence Gardner on the monitors? Is there support for his claim of being there beyond his 1891 statement?

No, unfortunately not at this time. However, there are quite a few things in Lawrence's account that ring true and support our other research. Namely, he mentions having to be ferried to the Monitor and that he and his father had gone to the Navy Yard at least 2 or three times previous to take photos of the conspirators..

Up until this time, many folks thought Gardner only took photos on April 27.

(05-30-2013 01:07 PM)wsanto Wrote: Although I am inclined to believe there is no photograph based on this new evidence, there is still some room to challenge it.

First- There is a contradiction. Why was Lawrence Gardiner sure that Rev. Anderson was not Booth when, as an aside, he admits that no photogragh was taken abourd the Montouk because the deceased did not resemble known photograghs of Booth enough to warrant such documentation as proof that Booth was dead?

Second-- (and this gets thrown around a lot so I'll toss it out there) His recollection is more than twenty-five years old. Why can we be sure his memory is factual?

We address all the challenges you bring up in our supplement. Lawrence Gardner had a chance to view the autopsy and recalled that the man had a broken leg, the tattoo with the JWB initials and the scar on the neck which was identified by Dr.May. He also said that they took Herold's photo that day and that Herold acknowledged that it was John Wilkes Booth. He was quite confident that the corpse was the assassin.

Although this article appeared 25 years after the event, Gardner was just 42 years old. He wasn't suffering from dementia or old age and was not seeking any sort of fame and recognition for his comments.

(05-30-2013 02:22 PM)LincolnMan Wrote: I too am disappointed that, apparently, there is no photo-and maybe there never was. It strikes me as somewhat odd that Gardner was working under the order of Stanton to take the photo. You mean to say he disobeyed Stanton? Wouldn't it have been better to take the photo anyway and let Stanton decide its outcome. So did Eckert make the decision to not take the photo without speaking to his Superior about it?

Eckert, along with Charles Dana, was an assistant Secretary of War. I imagine he had the authority to say whether the photo should be taken or not.

05-30-2013, 03:16 PM

My question is this-if no picture was taken, and Stanton wanted proof that it was really Booth's body, why didn't he just go down to the Montauk and see for himself??
Stanton seems like the type of person who would not rely on someone's verbal identification of JWB, he'd want a picture.

Laurie Verge · 05-30-2013, 03:45 PM

Given Stanton's aversions to dealing with death, I can easily see where he would not want to view the body of the man who had caused so much grief.

As for some other questions: I don't think we can dismiss a 42-year-old's memory as being vague after 25 years compared to other times when the "eyewitnesses" were in their twilight years.

Also, a 17-year-old is going to definitely remember the day that he went with his father and saw the assassin of the President. That would be burned into my memory until I was 42 or older.

I can also see where a photo of that corpse could create problems if it ever saw the light of day. Linda Anderson and I were discussing this about an hour ago. If the corpse didn't look like Booth (which it obviously didn't), the Northerners would immediately claim that the assassin had escaped (just like some of us are speculating now!). On the other hand, if the corpse was in bad condition (which frankly still shocks me that it was that badly decomposed in 24 hours), Southerners would scream that the authorities had desecrated the body (or even that Booth had been brutalized before death). It was a no-win situation to me.

And finally, since we have never found any further evidence to suggest what happened to the photo or anything to document that the photo was actually taken, we have to go with this account until something different can be proven.

John E. · (This post was last modified: 05-30-2013 04:09 PM by John E..)

When Booth was transferred from Bowling Green to the Navy Yard, he was placed face down. When the blood stops circulating, gravity takes over and the blood begins to pool. This is referred to as livor mortis. Measuring livor mortis is often used to calculate how long a person has been dead.

Anyhoo, the blood settled in to Booth's face and probably caused the freckling appearance. Another interesting tidbit is that Lawrence Gardner claimed to have met JWB briefly on the day of the assassination at the National Theater. More interesting stuff huh ?

Barry and I are looking for people to challenge this discovery and Gardner's account. If you have anything, please let it be known. We aren't so sensitive that we are trying to protect this find. It's out there to be debunked now and if someone does it, we will be thrilled. We just want to learn the facts.

(05-30-2013 03:16 PM)Hess1865 Wrote: My question is this-if no picture was taken, and Stanton wanted proof that it was really Booth's body, why didn't he just go down to the Montauk and see for himself??
Stanton seems like the type of person who would not rely on someone's verbal identification of JWB, he'd want a picture.

On April 27, Stanton was still pretty darn busy trying to conclude the war.

Jim Garrett · 05-30-2013, 04:46 PM

Barry and John: Great work. Everyone on this site know of your dedication and professionalism. This small quirky world of Lincoln Assassination experts/researchers/hangers ons is a better place with the two of you in it.

Dave Taylor · 05-30-2013, 04:47 PM

(05-30-2013 04:06 PM)John E. Wrote: Barry and I are looking for people to challenge this discovery and Gardner's account. If you have anything, please let it be known. We aren't so sensitive that we are trying to protect this find. It's out there to be debunked now and if someone does it, we will be thrilled. We just want to learn the facts.

John, I think the Lawrence Gardner account is valuable. Before this, the scale of the "Booth autopsy photograph" weighed in favor of its existence. With this account, I see it being balanced, if not a bit closer to the "does not exist" side.

To me it's akin to the "who bored the hole in the door to the box at Ford's Theatre" debate. We have James Ford's son stating much later that it was his father who did it and that "John Booth" had too many other things going on to drill a hole in a door, while, right after the assassination, James Ford speaks of having no knowledge of the hole.

The Lawrence Gardner account helps balance the scale, but I'd need a bit more than this to truly tip it to the "never happened" side. Find a source that gives credence to Lawrence Gardner's words and that'll help considerably.

Even if you do find further proof against the autopsy photograph, I think we would all still hope that one was around, waiting to be found. It's like Santa Claus. You might be able to catagorically prove that he doesn't exist, but people are going to want to believe in him anyway. Reason has a hard time fighting against hope.