The Legend Of John Wilkes Booth

[Dave Taylor]

(01-14-2016 03:16 AM)maharba Wrote:  At Garrett's, John Wilkes Booth, still under the assumed name Boyd, asked to inspect a map. Young Richard Baynham Garrett
handed the map to him. Booth told the boy that his ultimate destination was Mexico.

That was April 1865. By 1870, a man calling himself John St.Helen was in Granbury TX and who privately revealed he was in fact, John Wilkes Booth.

I'm very pleased to see you consulting material from the Garrett family since they are a reliable, primary source on the topic of the death of John Wilkes Booth. Their accounts easily disprove any conspiracy theory that "the government shot the wrong man and tried to cover it up". If the man killed had been anyone other than John Wilkes Booth, the Garretts would have happily called the government out on it due to the troubles it caused them. These soldiers burned their property down and arrested two of the Garrett sons for a time. Then, when the Garretts appealed to Congress for some financial compensation for their lost barn, they were perpetually denied for being "disloyal" aka Confederates. If anyone had motivation to screw over the government and mess with the official story, it was the Garretts. And yet, time and time again, every single Garrett present on April 26, 1865 reaffirmed that the man killed at their farm was the assassin of President Lincoln. Each Garrett family member, to his or her dying day, countered any half crazed conspiracy theory with the truth.

One of my favorite examples of a Garrett "truth bomb" is this one from a clearly exasperated Rev. Richard Baynham Garrett:

"Mr. Bates in his letter to me...asks, 'How do you know that the same man came back from the woods that went into the woods?' Did he think us a set of fools that we should not know a man in broad daylight that we had been entertaining for two days?"

[maharba]

Yes. I see Richard Baynham Garrett variously claimed to have locks of hair and 'other relics' of Booth. How long was it the man in the barn Boyd/Booth lived after he was backshot, I really wonder too. A couple hours, or even less. And if they really had had and kept "Booth's hair clipping", that would have simplified the search for DNA tests. The touching letter of reply from Edwin Booth, his mother so grateful to have the clipping of "Booth's hair". Yet, Edwin Booth had been sent back trunks full of JWBooth's costumes, and spent a whole day burning them all up. Somehow it doesn't add up.

[Gene C]

(01-14-2016 09:11 PM)maharba Wrote:  Somehow it doesn't add up.

This should help it make sense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8XMeocLflc

[Dave Taylor]

(01-14-2016 09:11 PM)maharba Wrote:  Yes. I see Richard Baynham Garrett variously claimed to have locks of hair and 'other relics' of Booth. How long was it the man in the barn Boyd/Booth lived after he was backshot, I really wonder too. A couple hours, or even less. And if they really had had and kept "Booth's hair clipping", that would have simplified the search for DNA tests. The touching letter of reply from Edwin Booth, his mother so grateful to have the clipping of "Booth's hair". Yet, Edwin Booth had been sent back trunks full of JWBooth's costumes, and spent a whole day burning them all up. Somehow it doesn't add up.

Pretty much everything in this response is either incorrect or misleading so I just wanted to post a quick retort. I apologize to everyone else for the lack of sources but it's late and I'm getting ready for bed.

1. The Garretts did have locks of Booth's hair. It's well documented and some members of this forum have even held it in their hands. The Garretts also had several other Booth relics such as the pillow he used when he slept in the house the first night and the blood stained porch planks from where he died.

2. Booth lived longer than most books give him credit for. I don't recall the exact time right now but it was close to two hours.

3. Hair can only be used for DNA when there is a root attached to it. The DNA is in the hair follicle and not in the strand itself. Even today I could not go to the barber, have him cut my hair, pick up a clipping and have it DNA tested. Without the root of the hair there is no DNA.

4. Edwin was very grateful to the Garretts for their kindness to his brother. He even bought some of Richard Baynham Garrett's seminary books in appreciation for the part of the lock of hair that the Garretts cut. Richard Baynham wanted to keep a little bit of the lock for himself which has been seen and held by members of this forum as stated. Correspondence between Edwin and Richard Baynham are housed at the Players Club in New York. Kate H. of this forum has seen them first hand.

5. The story about Edwin Booth purposefully burning his brother's theatrical garments has been pretty conclusively proven to be apocryphal. The trunk was accidentally lost when the Winter Garden Theater caught fire.

So, in the end, it actually all adds up perfectly.

[Wesley Harris]

Dave, you have to write that Garrett book!

[Carolyn Mitchell]

(01-14-2016 11:35 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 09:11 PM)maharba Wrote:  Yes. I see Richard Baynham Garrett variously claimed to have locks of hair and 'other relics' of Booth. How long was it the man in the barn Boyd/Booth lived after he was backshot, I really wonder too. A couple hours, or even less. And if they really had had and kept "Booth's hair clipping", that would have simplified the search for DNA tests. The touching letter of reply from Edwin Booth, his mother so grateful to have the clipping of "Booth's hair". Yet, Edwin Booth had been sent back trunks full of JWBooth's costumes, and spent a whole day burning them all up. Somehow it doesn't add up.

Pretty much everything in this response is either incorrect or misleading so I just wanted to post a quick retort. I apologize to everyone else for the lack of sources but it's late and I'm getting ready for bed.

1. The Garretts did have locks of Booth's hair. It's well documented and some members of this forum have even held it in their hands. The Garretts also had several other Booth relics such as the pillow he used when he slept in the house the first night and the blood stained porch planks from where he died.

2. Booth lived longer than most books give him credit for. I don't recall the exact time right now but it was close to two hours.

3. Hair can only be used for DNA when there is a root attached to it. The DNA is in the hair follicle and not in the strand itself. Even today I could not go to the barber, have him cut my hair, pick up a clipping and have it DNA tested. Without the root of the hair there is no DNA.

4. Edwin was very grateful to the Garretts for their kindness to his brother. He even bought some of Richard Baynham Garrett's seminary books in appreciation for the part of the lock of hair that the Garretts cut. Richard Baynham wanted to keep a little bit of the lock for himself which has been seen and held by members of this forum as stated. Correspondence between Edwin and Richard Baynham are housed at the Players Club in New York. Kate H. of this forum has seen them first hand.

5. The story about Edwin Booth purposefully burning his brother's theatrical garments has been pretty conclusively proven to be apocryphal. The trunk was accidentally lost when the Winter Garden Theater caught fire.

So, in the end, it actually all adds up perfectly.

Dave - if you write a book on the Garretts, I want my copy signed by you!

[Eva Elisabeth]

Same here!

[BettyO]

Agreed! I was about your age, Dave when I began serious research on Powell....

[L Verge]

(01-14-2016 10:34 PM)Gene C Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 09:11 PM)maharba Wrote:  Somehow it doesn't add up.

This should help it make sense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8XMeocLflc

Ma and Pa Kettle - there's a laugh-fest from the past. My father was not a movie fan, but he went to every movie the Kettles made; he also loved Francis The Talking Mule. But, I digress.

I definitely agree with everyone that a book on the Garretts by Dave Taylor would be a welcome addition to the study of the Lincoln assassination. After listening to Dave speak on the family at a Surratt conference several years ago, I'm convinced that he's the one that should do the writing.

[maharba]

At the very outset of "the capture of John Wilkes Booth" witnesses give strikingly different statements. The 'gospel filled born again' Boston Corbett says that god directed his shot and it hit Booth just behind the ear just like Lincoln was shot. But the body in the barn had NO such wound. And no one seemed to want to either acknowledge or question this contradiction. Boston Corbett also claimed that either Booth was pointing his rifle at him when he shot (which would produce a frontal shot in reply from Corbett's gun to the body in the barn, there was NO such wound on that body) or that Booth was raising his rifle to shoot other soldiers. But the boy Richard B. Garrett eyewitness testimony shows Boston Corbett was lying about that claim. But Boston Corbett, the Christian model of reformed virtue, went on a brief lecture tour and later to churches and sermons where he told that same heroic lie, over and over again. I wonder why Lincoln scholars seemed to have missed these glaring points? So, even in the initial phase of 'the capture of JWBooth', red flags should be going up, but seem to be ignored.

And some of the Garrett's had (may still have?) locks of hair from the man who was backshot in the barn. But...it is profitless to actually try to confirm it as being from the actor JWBooth "because it cannot have DNA" in it. And the several, long elaborated narratives from the servant of being there with Edwin Booth and actually burning trunks of John Wilkes Booth clothing and material...likely never really happened either...just an accidental fire?

[Gene C]

I think you may be overstating the point that historians have overlooked the fact that Corbett stretched the truth and embellished his story. It has been noted, they just haven't made as big a deal out of it as you seem to want to.

Most of the folks on the forum are aware that Corbett was not quite all there (in more ways than one), and Lincoln scholars have not hidden the fact. It is pretty clear the man had some mental problems. It is an interesting piece of history, somewhat troubling, most of us don't find personal satisfaction and pleasure in continually bringing it up.

I'm no psychiatrist, but I did watch a lot of Frasier and the Bob Newhart Show. Seems to me that people who are frequently pointing out how someone else is lying and making misleading statements, pointing out other peoples shortcomings as the major point of their conversation, could have a problem with their own self image and are trying to compensate.

[RJNorton]

(01-15-2016 09:55 PM)maharba Wrote:  Boston Corbett says that god directed his shot and it hit Booth just behind the ear just like Lincoln was shot. But the body in the barn had NO such wound. And no one seemed to want to either acknowledge or question this contradiction. Boston Corbett also claimed that either Booth was pointing his rifle at him when he shot (which would produce a frontal shot in reply from Corbett's gun to the body in the barn, there was NO such wound on that body) or that Booth was raising his rifle to shoot other soldiers. But the boy Richard B. Garrett eyewitness testimony shows Boston Corbett was lying about that claim.

The same person also said positively that the dead body was indeed Booth. I am curious why you 100% accept the boy's eyewitness account regarding Corbett but seem to question the same boy's eyewitness account regarding the man in the barn being Booth.

The June 8, 1903, edition of the Alexandria Gazette contained an interview with Richard H. Garrett’s youngest son, Reverend Dr. Richard B. Garrett. The interview was titled "SAW BOOTH KILLED."

In the interview Reverend Garrett said, "The slayer of President Lincoln died in my father’s barn. His remains were most thoroughly identified from a photograph and the printed description that was possessed by the soldiers. There is not the shadow of a doubt but that his wild life was ended by Sergeant Corbett’s bullet. I was there and was present at the identification. I know how thorough it was because it was the first intimation that my father had entertained for two days as his guest as an injured stranger in need -- the slayer of President Lincoln. I know how surprised we all were when it dawned upon us that the man lying dead before us could be no other than Booth. There were the tattoo marks of his initials on his arm, and the comparison with the picture was perfect. God never made two men exactly alike as the dead man and the one whose photograph there could be no doubt was Booth’s. Point by point the printed description held in the detective’s hand was followed out. Height, color of hair and eyes, every scar and mark tallied exactly."

[Susan Higginbotham]

Eyewitness testimony often varies, even when the witnesses are reporting what they saw in good faith (a good example being the disparate accounts as to what Booth said after shooting Lincoln). Perhaps Corbett genuinely believed he had struck Booth in the neck. I don't have any difficulty accepting his account as a whole, notwithstanding some inconsistencies.

What I do have difficulty understanding is why the man in the barn would allow himself to be shot in Booth's place. Why not surrender and give his real identity?

And if the man who died in the barn wasn't Booth, why didn't David Herold have this brought out at trial? It was certainly to his advantage to say that he wasn't with Booth.

[RJNorton]

Many thanks to Blaine for sending this information regarding the bullet that killed John Wilkes Booth. Blaine writes, "Here's a letter to Richard Sloan that I found in Dr. Richard Mudd's files, suggesting that it wasn't caused by Booth's carbine (meaning suicide) or a carbine outside the tobacco barn."

[L Verge]

(01-16-2016 02:01 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Many thanks to Blaine for sending this information regarding the bullet that killed John Wilkes Booth. Blaine writes, "Here's a letter to Richard Sloan that I found in Dr. Richard Mudd's files, suggesting that it wasn't caused by Booth's carbine (meaning suicide) or a carbine outside the tobacco barn."

Thank you, Blaine. And once again, a medical expert arrives at the same conclusion that historical experts have for a hundred years. Can we stop the speculation now?

BTW: Many people do not realize that the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology is called on to make many medical determinations when "civilian" pathologists cannot make clear decisions. It is not strictly a military facility. I learned this the hard way.