Drawing of Booth Body

[mikegriffith1]

(10-31-2018 05:03 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Why am I not surprised. Unlikely theories built on unsubstantiated information.

Well, now this is curious. Here you have been postulating a theory--that Booth's body became unrecognizable, and even sprouted freckles, after no more than 10 days of flight--that has no basis in forensic science, and that is in fact refuted by forensic science, and yet you attack Arnold's theory that Booth was placed in a safe hiding place near the Trappe House, even though that theory is consistent with the available evidence.

Booth and his companion left Garrett's farm with Jett, Bainbridge, and Ruggles--that's five men--but when the group passed the Trappe House, there were only four of them. Where did the fifth one go? So Arnold's theory is consistent with the evidence. The evidence does not "prove" that Booth was tucked away in a safe house near the Trappe House, but it allows that this could have happened, which is impressive when you think about it.

But your theory that Booth's body magically grew freckles and became unrecognizable after no more than 10 days in the Maryland and Virginia countryside in spring not only has no scientific support but is refuted by forensic science.

[L Verge]

Check your facts -- Booth remained at the Garrett farm and did not go on with Herold, Jett, Bainbridge, and Ruggles. The soldiers and Herold dropped Booth off and headed for Bowling Green. Jett was going to take Herold along to the Star Hotel with him, but after stopping at The Trap(pe), they met up with Jesse Gouldman (whose family owned the hotel), and upon learning Herold's identity, Jesse convinced them not to take him to the hotel. Instead, Herold rode along with Bainbridge to the home of Virginia Clarke. By coincidence, both Herold and Bainbridge knew Mrs. Clarke's son James.

In the late-afternoon of the next day, April 25, Ruggles and Bainbridge came back to Garrett's farm and dropped off Herold. A short time later, Ruggles and Bainbridge came galloping back to announce that a Union patrol had crossed into Port Royal. They then skedaddled into the woods. Booth called to the Garrett boys to get his pistols and then headed into the woods. Herold just stood there for awhile - probably ready to give up.
The 16th NY rode right past the farm, intent on getting to the Star Hotel and Willie Jett, but taking time to make inquiries at The Trap. The rest is history whether you wish to believe it or not.

[Gene C]

mikegriffith1, I think Booth's body was recognizable by most people who viewed it.
I was giving reasons to refute your argument that it wasn't Booth (because some thought it didn't look like Booth)
You seem to want to ignore the fact that a dead body looks different from the living person.

You are making the statement that Booth left Garrett's Farm with Jett. What evidence is there to support that statement?
Who testified to that?
You have yet to tell us what the available evidence is.

And, I don't recall that I ever stated one way or another regarding Booth's "freckles".

[RJNorton]

(11-02-2018 03:05 PM)Gene C Wrote:  You are making the statement that Booth left Garrett's Farm with Jett. What evidence is there to support that statement?
Who testified to that?
You have yet to tell us what the available evidence is.

Mike, in addition to Gene's questions I'd also like to know how Major O'Beirne notified Booth and Herold that he had found a suitable substitute for Booth. Dr. Arnold mentions that O'Beirne telegraphed this information to Stanton, but he does not say the manner in which Booth and Herold were informed.

[mikegriffith1]

(11-02-2018 03:05 PM)Gene C Wrote:  You are making the statement that Booth left Garrett's Farm with Jett. What evidence is there to support that statement? Who testified to that? You have yet to tell us what the available evidence is.

Sigh. . . . This is a theory of how Booth was placed out of harm's way. The theory is "consistent" with the evidence. The evidence does not disqualify the theory. I was paraphrasing Dr. Arnold's scenario. No one "testified" that Booth left the farm with with Jett. The theory is that he did so, that Boyd was left behind at the farm, and that the reason the Jett group that rode past the Trappe House was one man smaller than it was when it was originally seen was that Booth was one of them and had been placed in a safe house/safe place of hiding. I would suggest you read Dr. Arnold's 29-page discussion on this in his book (chapter 4).

(11-02-2018 03:27 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Mike, in addition to Gene's questions I'd also like to know how Major O'Beirne notified Booth and Herold that he had found a suitable substitute for Booth. Dr. Arnold mentions that O'Beirne telegraphed this information to Stanton, but he does not say the manner in which Booth and Herold were informed.

This could have been done by messenger, since O'Beirne was in Port Tobacco, 30-38 miles from the Port Royal-Bowling Green area. Or, he could have sent a telegram.

And I think Dr. Arnold makes a logical point in arguing that O'Beirne's telegram was in code, since it discusses nothing of substance yet was important enough for O'Beirne to send directly to Stanton.

The alternative conspiracy theory, as opposed to your conspiracy theory, explains why Dr. May said the body on the Montauk "bore no resemblance" to Booth, why L. Garnder said that when everyone first saw the body on the Montauk "we were all struck by the lack of any resemblance to Booth," why no one on the Montauk mentioned seeing any of Booth's known six other scars (at least two of which should have been rather obvious), why the government hid the fact that the face of the body on the Montauk was heavily freckled, why Pegram felt compelled to say that the body's head had grown "nearly a foot" of hair, why the autopsy photo that Wardell carried to Baker disappeared, why no one who knew Booth well was asked to ID his body on the Montauk, why the body at the 1869 viewing had only one filled tooth (instead of Booth's two filled teeth), why the 1869 body had damage near the knee that no one mentioned seeing on the body on the Montauk and damage that Dr. Mudd did not see when he examined Booth's leg, etc., etc., etc.

[RJNorton]

(11-03-2018 09:26 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  why no one who knew Booth well was asked to ID his body on the Montauk

Charles Dawson saw Booth many times in the recent past.

[Gene C]

(11-03-2018 09:26 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Sigh. . . . This is a theory of how Booth was placed out of harm's way. The theory is "consistent" with the evidence. The evidence does not disqualify the theory.

I'm sorry if I have overlooked this, but it's not clear to me, what "evidence"?

Otto Eisenschiml devotes an entire chapter in his book, In the Shadow of Lincoln's Death, that it was most likely John Wilkes Booth who was shot and killed at the Garrett farm, but Eisenschiml does leave himself a little wiggle room.

"In all probability, and giving due weight to all aspects of the case, Herold felt certain that it was Booth, and no one else, who had been shot" p.65

"Pending further developments, the contenders for the orthodox theory have by far the better case, although it does not stand proven" p.87.

I know how much you respect Eisenchiml's research, are you saying Herold thinks Boyd is Booth?

[Steve]

(11-03-2018 10:03 AM)Gene C Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 09:26 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Sigh. . . . This is a theory of how Booth was placed out of harm's way. The theory is "consistent" with the evidence. The evidence does not disqualify the theory.

I'm sorry if I have overlooked this, but it's not clear to me, what "evidence"?

Otto Eisenschiml devotes an entire chapter in his book, In the Shadow of Lincoln's Death, that it was most likely John Wilkes Booth who was shot and killed at the Garrett farm, but Eisenschiml does leave himself a little wiggle room.

"In all probability, and giving due weight to all aspects of the case, Herold felt certain that it was Booth, and no one else, who had been shot" p.65

"Pending further developments, the contenders for the orthodox theory have by far the better case, although it does not stand proven" p.87.

I know how much you respect Eisenchiml's research, are you saying Herold thinks Boyd is Booth?

Moreover, how do you explain the account of Pvt. John W. Millington of the 16th New York Cavalry:

We could hear Booth accusing the man who was with him, David E. Harold, of being a coward. Harold was willing to surrender and Booth said, "You're a coward to desert me." Finally, Booth called out and said, "Harold will surrender, but I will not." Our captain said, "Tell Harold to pass out his arms and come out." Booth said, "Harold has no arms. They belong to me." "Our officer told Harold to come to the door. He came and as he opened the door Lieutenant Dougherty grabbed him and pulled him out. With a picket rope he tied him to a locust tree, called me and told me to guard him. I said to Harold, "Who was in the barn with you? Was it Booth?" He said, "Yes, Booth is in the barn."

If a switch had been made why would "Boyd" call Herold a coward for deserting him? And why would Herold identify the other man in the barn as Booth prior to the shot being fired?

https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln73.html

[mikegriffith1]

(11-03-2018 10:53 AM)Steve Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 10:03 AM)Gene C Wrote:  [quote='mikegriffith1' pid='73688' dateline='1541255172']
Sigh. . . . This is a theory of how Booth was placed out of harm's way. The theory is "consistent" with the evidence. The evidence does not disqualify the theory.

I'm sorry if I have overlooked this, but it's not clear to me, what "evidence"?

Did you read my entire reply? As I thought I made crystal clear, I was referring to evidence that Dr. Arnold's discusses in Chapter 4 of his book.

(11-03-2018 10:03 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Otto Eisenschiml devotes an entire chapter in his book, In the Shadow of Lincoln's Death, that it was most likely John Wilkes Booth who was shot and killed at the Garrett farm, but Eisenschiml does leave himself a little wiggle room.

"In all probability, and giving due weight to all aspects of the case, Herold felt certain that it was Booth, and no one else, who had been shot" p.65

"Pending further developments, the contenders for the orthodox theory have by far the better case, although it does not stand proven" p.87.

I know how much you respect Eisenchiml's research, are you saying Herold thinks Boyd is Booth?

One, Eisenschiml notes that Herold initially said the man was Boyd. How did you miss that? Or were you quoting someone else's quotation of Eisenschiml?

Two, as I've said a few times, I simply disagree with Eisenschiml on this point, and I believe that if Eisenschiml were alive today and read the research on this issue that was published after he wrote his books, he would change his mind.

Three, if you are going to insist that the man in the barn was Booth, then you need to, finally, come up with medical evidence that a body's appearance, including its "lineaments," can become unrecognizable, and magically grow freckles on its face, after no more than 10 days under similar circumstances. That's the hard, science-based objection that you keep avoiding.

(11-03-2018 10:53 AM)Steve Wrote:  Moreover, how do you explain the account of Pvt. John W. Millington of the 16th New York Cavalry:

We could hear Booth accusing the man who was with him, David E. Harold, of being a coward. Harold was willing to surrender and Booth said, "You're a coward to desert me." Finally, Booth called out and said, "Harold will surrender, but I will not." Our captain said, "Tell Harold to pass out his arms and come out." Booth said, "Harold has no arms. They belong to me." "Our officer told Harold to come to the door. He came and as he opened the door Lieutenant Dougherty grabbed him and pulled him out. With a picket rope he tied him to a locust tree, called me and told me to guard him. I said to Harold, "Who was in the barn with you? Was it Booth?" He said, "Yes, Booth is in the barn."

Humm, now that's odd, since Doherty says no such thing in his report. Why do you suppose that is? Furthermore, Herold initially said that the man was Boyd.

(11-03-2018 10:53 AM)Steve Wrote:  If a switch had been made why would "Boyd" call Herold a coward for deserting him? And why would Herold identify the other man in the barn as Booth prior to the shot being fired?

https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln73.html

Are you serious?! OF COURSE Boyd would have called Herold a coward for deserting him! It would have been only natural for him to do so. And, again, I point out that initially Herold said that the man was Boyd, not Booth.

[Jim Garrett]

I don't think the source(s) regarding the freckles has much credibility. Most of the alternate identification information has long been discredited. As for the change of appearance from the hale and healthy JWB of pre-April 14th, to the haggard body brought onto the Montauk, I asked John Howard for his opinion. For those who don't know John, he is a life member of the Surratt Society. He was an Army medic in Viet Nam, a high school science teacher and works in several pathology department. He has performed hundreds of autopsies, seen huindreds of recently deceased, and I value his expertise in this area.

John Howard believes the exposure to the elements while on the run, the painful injury, the rough treatment of the corpse on the journey back to Washington, and the very strong possibility that JWB was disfigured by lividity would account for any change in appearance. We both put great weight on the Baltimore identification by family members.

While I would love to believe that JWB got away, it just didn't happen.

[L Verge]

(11-03-2018 11:23 AM)Jim Garrett Wrote:  I don't think the source(s) regarding the freckles has much credibility. Most of the alternate identification information has long been discredited. As for the change of appearance from the hale and healthy JWB of pre-April 14th, to the haggard body brought onto the Montauk, I asked John Howard for his opinion. For those who don't know John, he is a life member of the Surratt Society. He was an Army medic in Viet Nam, a high school science teacher and works in several pathology department. He has performed hundreds of autopsies, seen huindreds of recently deceased, and I value his expertise in this area.

John Howard believes the exposure to the elements while on the run, the painful injury, the rough treatment of the corpse on the journey back to Washington, and the very strong possibility that JWB was disfigured by lividity would account for any change in appearance. We both put great weight on the Baltimore identification by family members.

While I would love to believe that JWB got away, it just didn't happen.

I am so glad that John Howard chimed in on this because he is definitely a "hands-on" resource in the field of medical and historical studies! He is also one of the narrators on our popular bus tours over the escape route and knows the history so well that he handles all types of questions with aplomb.

Frankly, I am growing very bored with this discussion always swinging around to the subject of "freckles" on the corpse of Booth. That seems to be the main line of defense for Mr. Griffith's theory.

Finally, the premise about it having to be Boyd in the barn because Herold first used that name instead of Booth's: Has anyone ever heard about aliases or cover names used by criminals, fugitives, or even good people trying to avoid bad people?

[Gene C]

(11-03-2018 11:22 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 10:53 AM)Steve Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 10:03 AM)Gene C Wrote:  [quote='mikegriffith1' pid='73688' dateline='1541255172']
Sigh. . . . This is a theory of how Booth was placed out of harm's way. The theory is "consistent" with the evidence. The evidence does not disqualify the theory.

I'm sorry if I have overlooked this, but it's not clear to me, what "evidence"?

Did you read my entire reply? As I thought I made crystal clear, I was referring to evidence that Dr. Arnold's discusses in Chapter 4 of his book.

(11-03-2018 10:03 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Otto Eisenschiml devotes an entire chapter in his book, In the Shadow of Lincoln's Death, that it was most likely John Wilkes Booth who was shot and killed at the Garrett farm, but Eisenschiml does leave himself a little wiggle room.

"In all probability, and giving due weight to all aspects of the case, Herold felt certain that it was Booth, and no one else, who had been shot" p.65

"Pending further developments, the contenders for the orthodox theory have by far the better case, although it does not stand proven" p.87.

I know how much you respect Eisenchiml's research, are you saying Herold thinks Boyd is Booth?

One, Eisenschiml notes that Herold initially said the man was Boyd. How did you miss that? Or were you quoting someone else's quotation of Eisenschiml?

Two, as I've said a few times, I simply disagree with Eisenschiml on this point, and I believe that if Eisenschiml were alive today and read the research on this issue that was published after he wrote his books, he would change his mind.

Three, if you are going to insist that the man in the barn was Booth, then you need to, finally, come up with medical evidence that a body's appearance, including its "lineaments," can become unrecognizable, and magically grow freckles on its face, after no more than 10 days under similar circumstances. That's the hard, science-based objection that you keep avoiding.

I do not have Arnold's book, and neither does my library. Perhaps you can quote a few passages from his book (including page number)to show what "evidence" you keep referring to.

next, you are taking Eisenschiml out of context in the discussion regarding Herold's statement about Booth. While Herold may have initially stated it was Boyd, he later states it was Booth. Eisenschiml explains reasons for this.

Three, there are enough people who identified Booth's body. Some claimed his body (face ?) appeared to have changed some, but still were able to identify the body as Booth. How many claimed they didn't recognize him at all?
I agree with Jim Garrett's post

[AussieMick]

Taking as fact that Herold referred to the other man in the barn as Boyd :

I'm guessing/ hoping, Mike, that you have some friends in the legal or police area? I suggest that you please ask them whether Herold referring to the man in the barn as 'Boyd' constitutes as evidence in identifying that person?

No need to remind your friend that Herold was not a character of good standing or that both men were on the run and likely to hang and that Booth would have desperately wanted to be known as someone else and Herold would be aware of that ... and that anybody associating with a person whose name was Booth in such circumstances would be arrested ...

... simply ask your friend "Would Herold's statement in the Barn be acceptable as evidence identifying the man as Boyd ?"

(Please dont repeat all the previous instances of nonentities identifying the dead body as Booth ... they're irrelevant ... there are plenty of instances of reliable people making formal identification ... this Post of mine relates to Herold's statements in the barn.)

[mikegriffith1]

(11-02-2018 02:56 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Check your facts -- Booth remained at the Garrett farm and did not go on with Herold, Jett, Bainbridge, and Ruggles. The soldiers and Herold dropped Booth off and headed for Bowling Green. Jett was going to take Herold along to the Star Hotel with him, but after stopping at The Trap(pe), they met up with Jesse Gouldman (whose family owned the hotel), and upon learning Herold's identity, Jesse convinced them not to take him to the hotel. Instead, Herold rode along with Bainbridge to the home of Virginia Clarke. By coincidence, both Herold and Bainbridge knew Mrs. Clarke's son James.

In the late-afternoon of the next day, April 25, Ruggles and Bainbridge came back to Garrett's farm and dropped off Herold. A short time later, Ruggles and Bainbridge came galloping back to announce that a Union patrol had crossed into Port Royal. They then skedaddled into the woods. Booth called to the Garrett boys to get his pistols and then headed into the woods. Herold just stood there for awhile - probably ready to give up.

The 16th NY rode right past the farm, intent on getting to the Star Hotel and Willie Jett, but taking time to make inquiries at The Trap. The rest is history whether you wish to believe it or not.

This is the same tale that the military commission put forward, and there are huge holes in this version of events. This tale is based on numerous assumptions that are in turn based on questionable, suspect testimony that was solicited or accepted by a commission that used clearly bogus evidence, evidence that would be laughed out of any credible court on the planet in our day (e.g., the magical floating letter and the magical fireplace letter). Rather than reinvent the wheel, for a more factual and logical version of Booth's flight and movements, I would refer interested readers to chapters 20-22 in Guttridge and Neff's book Dark Union, to chapters 19-21 in Theodore Roscoe's book The Web of Conspiracy, and to chapters 4 and 5 in Dr. Robert Arnold's book The Conspiracy Between John Wilkes Booth and the Union Army to Assassinate Abraham Lincoln.

If the body recovered from Garrett's barn had been Booth, Luther Baker would not have taken off with the body for several hours; long-time friends of Booth's would have been called to the Montauk to identify the body; Dr. Merrill's presence and findings on the Montauk would not have vanished from the official record; the body on the Montauk would not have magically sprouted freckles on its face; the body on the Montauk would not have looked so different from Booth that Eckert did not want any photos taken of it; Dr. May would not have declared that never had a body's appearance changed so drastically from how it looked in life; Dr. May would not have said that the body's lineaments (distinctive features, especially of the face) bore no resemblance to Booth's; the people who viewed the body on the Montauk would not have been "shocked" at the body's lack of resemblance to Booth; several photos would have been taken of the body on the Montauk; at least a few of the people, certainly at least one of the doctors, who "identified" the body would have noticed at least one or two of the scars that Booth was known to have on his face and right arm; Colonel Cobb, the one person to come to the Montauk who had known Booth for years, would have been allowed to view the body, instead of being turned away with a bogus excuse; people on the Montauk that day would not have felt the need to invent--decades later--unbelievable, contradictory, and mutually impeaching tales about seeing the JWB initials on the body; the body viewed in 1869 would not have had hair that was a foot longer than Booth's hair; the body at the 1869 viewing would not have had serious damage on or just below the left knee; and the body at the 1869 viewing would have had two fillings instead of just one.

[Gene C]

(11-03-2018 01:07 PM)Gene C Wrote:  I do not have Arnold's book, and neither does my library. Perhaps you can quote a few passages from his book (including page number)to show what "evidence" you keep referring to.

I would respond to your comment in your post above, but you keep going round in circles and rarely answer anyone's questions with verifiable and reliable original sources.

Am quite busy this weekend, but will try to read the chapters in Dark Union you mentioned and respond to your comment. As I best recall, one of Dark Union's short comings was statements and conclusions drawn from papers and diaries where the original documents can not be produced, at best they are only hearsay. I do find it interesting that two authors you seem to mention frequently, Eisenschiml and Don Thomas indicate the weight of evidence is stronger that Booth was shot and killed at Garrett's Farm than otherwise.