Robert Arnold's Book The Conspiracy Between John Wilkes Booth and the Union Army

[mikegriffith1]

(08-20-2018 04:20 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 02:56 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Dr. Arnold also argues that the description of the man in the barn's injured ankle could not have been describing the appearance of the kind of injury that Booth had. Dr. Arnold, a retired Navy surgeon and former coroner, contends that there would not have been the described amount of bruising and swelling from an ankle fracture.

Has Dr. Arnold ever treated, or experienced himself, a broken leg bone that has been subjected to twelve days of riding horseback (which included mounting and dismounting); spending a lot of time on the ground, which was cold and damp during April in Southern Maryland; and jostling around in a wagon? Bet not...

Apparently you have not read Dr. Arnold's book. He discusses the ankle injury in detail.

Booth spent much of his time sitting or lying down. Cox gave him extra blankets. The weather was mild during the day most of the time. It only got chilly at night. He had Herold to help him mount any horse he rode.

The ankle injury was not that all that bad. You might want to read Dr. Arnold's analysis on the issue.

(08-20-2018 04:20 PM)L Verge Wrote:  We rec'd a review copy of Dr. Arnold's book several years ago and decided not to get it for our gift shop.

So you don't trust your customers to use their own judgment and to reach their own conclusions about his research? That's unfortunate. If I operated a book store and carried books on this kind of subject, I would ensure that my customers had a balanced, wide-ranging selection of books, not just the ones that I liked.

"Several years ago"? Arnold's book came out in 2016.

(08-16-2018 02:27 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Finished Arnold's book today. A lot of information to take in. Arnold seems to make a solid case that Stanton, Baker, Holt, and some other Army officers were involved.

I had been skeptical of the theory that Booth escaped, mainly because I trusted the government's identification of the body and the family's later identification. But Arnold presents good reasons to doubt those identifications.

Another thing I find fascinating about Arnold's book is his medically based commentary on the wound described in the autopsy report and on the injury to Booth's ankle. A former Navy surgeon, Arnold shows that the government's version of the shooting of the man in the Garrett barn could not have happened, that there is no way the man could have been standing up and walking toward the barn door when he was shot, because the bullet entered the man's head at about a 25-degree angle. Arnold also seems to make a good case that the bullet must have been a rifle bullet, not a pistol bullet.

(08-20-2018 04:20 PM)L Verge Wrote:  The best description that I have ever heard as to how Corbett's pistol shot entered Booth through the back of his neck came from expert researcher, historian, and author Michael W. Kauffman.

You mean the same Michael Kauffman who uses Seaton Munroe's error-riddled collection of tall tales as a source and who even cites Munroe's story about seeing Keene virtually covered in blood? The same Michael Kauffman who uses Sgt. Hartley's unbelievable tale as "evidence" that the JWB initials were seen on the body, without mentioning a single one of the glaring holes in Hartley's account? The same Michael Kauffman who approvingly cites Willie Jett's (of all people's) claim that he noticed the JWB initials on Booth? (In his notes, Kauffman cites sources that claim that Booth even pointed out the initials while supposedly at Garrett's farm!) The same Michael Kauffman who tries to use Barnes's statement about the scar looking like a burn scar as "evidence" of the identification? (Kauffman mentions none of the obvious problems with the scar identification.) That Michael Kauffman?

Kauffman does not touch the fact that the bullet was--twice--initially described as a rifle bullet.

Again, you might want to read Dr. Arnold's book. Dr. Arnold, a genuine expert in such matters, discusses the evidence that the damage to the spine clearly indicates the bullet was a rifle bullet, not a pistol bullet. Furthermore, following up on the 1993 AFIP analysis, Dr. Arnold shows beyond dispute that the bullet traveled at a downward angle of 25 degrees below the horizontal.

(08-20-2018 04:20 PM)L Verge Wrote:  When Mike used to narrate the Surratt Society's Booth Escape Route Tours, he would carefully explain that Corbett was actually aiming at Booth's shoulder in an attempt to get him to drop his rifle. However, because of the broken leg, as Booth advanced towards the door to escape the increasing flames, he limped on his injured left leg causing the bullet to hit him in the neck instead of the shoulder.

But Conger said the man in the barn dropped his weapon (he clearly used "arm" as "gun/weapon") before he started walking toward the door and before the shot was fired. Again, Corbett could not have fired the shot because he only had a pistol, and claimed that he shot the man in the barn with his pistol. And are you going to explain how anyone standing on the ground could have fired a bullet that transited the target body at a 25-degree downward angle? Kauffman doesn't even mention these issues, probably because he was unaware of them, or could not explain them.

Quote:Have you read Dr. John K. Lattimer's detailed ballistic account of the shooting? I think it's still available on the secondary market. I knew John for forty years, and he was researching and experimenting in the ballistics field long before that. He was also expert in the Kennedy assassination and was the first civilian outside of the family to be allowed to study the autopsy and ballistic details re: JFK.

As a published author and recognized authority on the JFK assassination in the JFK research community, I am quite familiar with Dr. Lattimer. I don't know about his research on other cases, but his work on the JFK case was awful. He misrepresented his own ballistics tests and never stopped defending the absurd single-bullet theory. A few sources on his JFK-related research:

https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkme...lWound.htm

http://jfkfacts.org/milicent-cranors-res...n-davison/

http://miketgriffith.com/files/vsmcadams.htm

http://miketgriffith.com/files/hasty.htm

[L Verge]

First, "several years ago" means just that - Arnold's book came out in 2016, which is several years removed from the current year of 2018.

Second, Our gift shop manager (who is an expert in the Lincoln assassination field also) and I reviewed Arnold's book at the time that he sent it to us. Please note that he was plugging his book; we did not solicit it and his publisher did not send us one. Perhaps sales were moving slowly?

One author has referred to the Surratt House Museum and its related members as "the Vatican" for those interested in the history of this crucial event (and, it was meant with respect, not as a put-down). Perhaps Dr. Arnold saw a lucrative market at our museum? However, we did not consider the content up to good research standards and did not believe his claim that he had found so many things secretly hidden away by the government for over 150 years. Is his the first book we have rejected? Heck, no! Just rejected one on Pink Parker yesterday.

At this very moment, Arnold's book is sitting on my kitchen table, and I have every good intent of giving it a second go-round. One thing I remembered immediately upon opening the volume is that there are almost as many pages dedicated to photocopies of his presented "evidence" as there are pages of text. Not always a good sign, at least to me -- filler when one can't find enough to write about?

And, all of your disparaging remarks about Michael Kauffman -- yep, same man who is very well-respected in the history and publishing field. I do not agree with all of his conclusions, but I certainly stand in awe of the tremendous amount of intense research that he has done over the course of about 40 years (and continues to do while working a full-time job and raising a family). Perhaps some day I will have the same respect for your writings, but not right now.

And finally, please verify your statement, "As a published author and recognized authority on the JFK assassination in the JFK research community, I am quite familiar with Dr. Lattimer." I am a little confused as to who the "published author and recognized authority" is. Are you referring to yourself or Dr, Lattimer? Poor sentence structure, sorry. In any event, the Kennedy family thought enough of his qualifications to allow him access to the medical files. And isn't it a little self-serving to list your websites as references?

Good night. I'm sure we'll be chatting again tomorrow.

[mikegriffith1]

(10-25-2018 07:30 PM)L Verge Wrote:  First, "several years ago" means just that - Arnold's book came out in 2016, which is several years removed from the current year of 2018.

Second, Our gift shop manager (who is an expert in the Lincoln assassination field also) and I reviewed Arnold's book at the time that he sent it to us. Please note that he was plugging his book; we did not solicit it and his publisher did not send us one. Perhaps sales were moving slowly?

One author has referred to the Surratt House Museum and its related members as "the Vatican" for those interested in the history of this crucial event (and, it was meant with respect, not as a put-down). Perhaps Dr. Arnold saw a lucrative market at our museum? However, we did not consider the content up to good research standards and did not believe his claim that he had found so many things secretly hidden away by the government for over 150 years. Is his the first book we have rejected? Heck, no! Just rejected one on Pink Parker yesterday.

At this very moment, Arnold's book is sitting on my kitchen table, and I have every good intent of giving it a second go-round. One thing I remembered immediately upon opening the volume is that there are almost as many pages dedicated to photocopies of his presented "evidence" as there are pages of text. Not always a good sign, at least to me -- filler when one can't find enough to write about?

And, all of your disparaging remarks about Michael Kauffman -- yep, same man who is very well-respected in the history and publishing field. I do not agree with all of his conclusions, but I certainly stand in awe of the tremendous amount of intense research that he has done over the course of about 40 years (and continues to do while working a full-time job and raising a family). Perhaps some day I will have the same respect for your writings, but not right now.

And finally, please verify your statement, "As a published author and recognized authority on the JFK assassination in the JFK research community, I am quite familiar with Dr. Lattimer." I am a little confused as to who the "published author and recognized authority" is. Are you referring to yourself or Dr, Lattimer? Poor sentence structure, sorry. In any event, the Kennedy family thought enough of his qualifications to allow him access to the medical files. And isn't it a little self-serving to list your websites as references?

Good night. I'm sure we'll be chatting again tomorrow.

My points in reply:

* Two years is usually not referred to as "several years." And it is not unusual for authors and small publishers to send complimentary copies of their books to bookstores in the hope of getting them stocked.

* One reason it is unfortunate that you chose not to carry Dr. Arnold's book is that it contains a substantial amount of important new information from documents that the military commission suppressed and buried. Dr. Arnold spent years finding these documents in the National Archives, and he deserves the gratitude of all serious scholars for bringing to light the information contained in those documents. I do not understand the criticism of his providing images of these documents. Given the importance of those documents, I am glad that he allows the reader to see some of them.

* I am sure Michael Kauffman is a nice man, but I do not know how anyone could view his book as a strong, much less definitive, answer to the alternative theory regarding Booth's fate. Kauffman addresses almost none of the problems with the traditional version of Booth's fate. He spends one short paragraph on the issue of the JWB initials and says nothing about the huge problems with the traditional claims regarding the initials. He does not discuss any of the medical and ballistics evidence that Corbett could not have shot the man in the barn. He even uses Seaton Munroe's horrendously errant and dubious article as a source on events at the theater that night, even though many scholars have expressed doubt about his claims in this regard (e.g., https://www.jstor.org/stable/3205119?seq...contents).

* As a technical writer, I can assure you that my sentence was not the least bit poor in structure but perfectly valid. I identified myself with the pronoun "I" after the prepositional subordinate clause that began the sentence, which should have made it quite clear that I was referring to myself, since the noun/pronoun after such a clause should identify the person referred to in the clause.

But, yes, I was referring to myself. Although I am not very active in JFK research anymore, I still maintain a heavily trafficked website on the case. When I was active in the JFK research community, I was interviewed on BBC Canada and on other programs as a guest expert, and my research was widely quoted by other researchers and experts. In 1997, I wrote a book on the case, which was published by JFK Lancer Productions and Publications, and which sold out all of its printings. Many JFK assassination research sites still carry links to my articles and to my website. In fact, earlier this year, I was contacted by the producer of a JFK assassination documentary asking for permission to use my research on the House Select Committee on Assassinations' analysis of the backyard rifle photos.

I do not know why it was "self-serving" to list some of my articles to support my comments about Lattimer. When I see someone cite some of their own research in an online discussion, I never think of that as "self-serving," just as I do not view it as self-serving when I see authors cite their own research in a book, which they do quite often.

* Finally, in your previous reply, you said that Booth was on the run for 12 days. Actually, he was on the run for less than 10 days. He shot Lincoln at around 10:10 PM on April 14 and died at around 7:00 AM on April 26, which amounts to 225 hours, or nine days and nine hours.

[AussieMick]

Mike, I really dont know why you continue with the issue of the bullet transiting downwards as if it proves the man was not Booth and Corbett couldnt have shot him. ( The issue of pistol or rifle is something else that I dont have enough knowledge to discuss ... except to say ... "So what? Can we be sure Corbett didnt have a rifle? )

As I have posted before its more than likely that Booth, or whoever it was, was stumbling or on his knees or even crawling in desperation to get out of the barn. So any bullet fired at his head would ... transit downwards.

The descriptions that we have as to what happened immediately before the shot lack any real detail (as far as I have read anyway). Corbett would have been under pressure to explain why he fired and wouldnt want to admit killing a crippled man on his knees.

[mikegriffith1]

(10-26-2018 04:38 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  Mike, I really dont know why you continue with the issue of the bullet transiting downwards as if it proves the man was not Booth and Corbett couldnt have shot him. ( The issue of pistol or rifle is something else that I dont have enough knowledge to discuss ... except to say ... "So what? Can we be sure Corbett didnt have a rifle? )

As I have posted before its more than likely that Booth, or whoever it was, was stumbling or on his knees or even crawling in desperation to get out of the barn. So any bullet fired at his head would ... transit downwards.

The descriptions that we have as to what happened immediately before the shot lack any real detail (as far as I have read anyway). Corbett would have been under pressure to explain why he fired and wouldnt want to admit killing a crippled man on his knees.

Corbett said that the man was standing up, that the man was raising his weapon, and that that's why he shot him. Every account that we have from the people who were there says the man was standing up. Every newspaper depiction of the man published in the aftermath of the event, based on those accounts, showed him standing up.

Plus, there's the ballistics and forensic problem that the bullet was originally labeled a rifle bullet and that the damage to the spine is clearly indicative of the damage caused by a high-velocity rifle bullet, which is probably why the bullet was originally labeled as a rifle bullet. Having researched bullet behavior extensively in my research on the JFK case (e.g., http://miketgriffith.com/files/forensic.htm), I know a thing or two about this issue, and Dr. Arnold is on very solid ground in noting the indications that the damage must have been done by a high-velocity rifle bullet.

[AussieMick]

Ok, Mike. I'm truly trying to understand what your points are (and you may well have good ones) on this specific issue (the transit of the bullet and the rifle/pistol) .

I dont think many people apart from Corbett were watching what was happening in the dark smoke filled barn.

But, Ok, are you suggesting that it may not have been Corbett who shot 'Booth'?

Could 'Booth' have been standing if he was shot by a bullet transiting downwards? Are you saying Corbett was not telling the truth?

And/or that the shot was from a higher spot such as the the roof ?

Or that the person was shot elsewhere?

Or that the body later subject to autopsy was not that of the person shot in the barn? (if so, I suppose we'd need to disbelieve all those 'people' that saw the events in the barn and that the person in the barn either escaped or his body was disposed of somehow without all the soldiers knowledge)

[L Verge]

(10-26-2018 04:57 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 04:38 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  Mike, I really dont know why you continue with the issue of the bullet transiting downwards as if it proves the man was not Booth and Corbett couldnt have shot him. ( The issue of pistol or rifle is something else that I dont have enough knowledge to discuss ... except to say ... "So what? Can we be sure Corbett didnt have a rifle? )

As I have posted before its more than likely that Booth, or whoever it was, was stumbling or on his knees or even crawling in desperation to get out of the barn. So any bullet fired at his head would ... transit downwards.

The descriptions that we have as to what happened immediately before the shot lack any real detail (as far as I have read anyway). Corbett would have been under pressure to explain why he fired and wouldnt want to admit killing a crippled man on his knees.

Corbett said that the man was standing up, that the man was raising his weapon, and that that's why he shot him. Every account that we have from the people who were there says the man was standing up. Every newspaper depiction of the man published in the aftermath of the event, based on those accounts, showed him standing up.

Plus, there's the ballistics and forensic problem that the bullet was originally labeled a rifle bullet and that the damage to the spine is clearly indicative of the damage caused by a high-velocity rifle bullet, which is probably why the bullet was originally labeled as a rifle bullet. Having researched bullet behavior extensively in my research on the JFK case (e.g., http://miketgriffith.com/files/forensic.htm), I know a thing or two about this issue, and Dr. Arnold is on very solid ground in noting the indications that the damage must have been done by a high-velocity rifle bullet.

I think the words "labeled a rifle bullet" are incorrect here. Hasn't the bullet that killed Booth been lost to history? Didn't it cut a clear entrance and exit wound? Would it not have ended up on the floor of the barn to be damaged by fire, or best to have lasted in the ruins until the 1940s when bulldozers would push it through mounds of dirt in clearing the path for the building of U.S. Route 301 (and disturbed perhaps again as that road was turned into a dual-lane highway)?

Isn't the one on display with Booth's vertebrae at the AFIP museum there to represent the type of bullet that would have created the dimensions of the bullet that passed through those vertebrae? Dimensions that don't fit a rifle caliber?

But of course, it just dawned on me that you probably will next claim that those vertebrae didn't come from Booth; they were picked from a storage pile of vertebrae to match the caliber of a pistol in order to continue the government's dastardly cover-up...

Isn't the purpose of your continued posting of the same redundant information to say it for so long that readers start to believe it? Isn't that a first step in brainwashing?

---

I also want to add that my family owned two tobacco farms that were worked by tenant farmers when I was a child, so I have been in and out of tobacco barns many times. Your description of the angle and trajectory of the bullet would place the shooter either on a step ladder outside the barn or standing on tobacco-stick "rafters" inside the burning barn. What is your take on where the soldier was standing who fired the shot -- assuming that it was not necessarily Corbett?

The only thing that I like about your theory on the matter is that it proves Booth did not commit suicide by placing the pistol/rifle in that awkward position at the back of his neck!

[Steve]

Here's a link to the page of Dr. Arnold's book specifically about the type of weapon/bullet used:

https://books.google.com/books?id=9Ga_DA...22&f=false

On the page just prior to where the link opens, Arnold cites Leonard Guttridge's Jan. 1993 Navy Medicine article as his source for this information, here's a link to that article:

http://library.indstate.edu/rbsc/neff/PD...cation.pdf

The "rifle bullet" description Mike is referring to comes from the catalogue reference written for Booth's vertebrae for the Army Medical Museum in 1866. (Guttridge p. 23) That's a year after the assassination and the conspirator's trial! If Surgeon General Barnes believed the wound was made by a carbine and not Corbett's pistol, he sure didn't give any indication of that. The actual wording used for the catalogue was "a conoidal carbine bullet entered the right side". Which was later corrected to "a conoidal pistol ball entered the right side". Nothing about this chronology suggests anything other than an error in wording for the description of a museum piece that was later corrected.

Here's a Boothie Barn article on the vertebrae:

https://boothiebarn.com/2014/06/27/john-...vertebrae/

[mikegriffith1]

(10-26-2018 11:35 PM)Steve Wrote:  Here's a link to the page of Dr. Arnold's book specifically about the type of weapon/bullet used:

https://books.google.com/books?id=9Ga_DA...22&f=false

On the page just prior to where the link opens, Arnold cites Leonard Guttridge's Jan. 1993 Navy Medicine article as his source for this information, here's a link to that article:

http://library.indstate.edu/rbsc/neff/PD...cation.pdf

The "rifle bullet" description Mike is referring to comes from the catalogue reference written for Booth's vertebrae for the Army Medical Museum in 1866. (Guttridge p. 23) That's a year after the assassination and the conspirator's trial! If Surgeon General Barnes believed the wound was made by a carbine and not Corbett's pistol, he sure didn't give any indication of that.

Yes, he did. He originally described it as a carbine bullet. Furthermore, the original card attached to the spine specimen quoted his original description, but the card, too, was later changed to indicate a pistol ball instead of a carbine bullet.

Quote:The actual wording used for the catalogue was "a conoidal carbine bullet entered the right side". Which was later corrected to "a conoidal pistol ball entered the right side". Nothing about this chronology suggests anything other than an error in wording for the description of a museum piece that was later corrected.

So you are assuming that this was just "an error in wording"?! And you guys talk about other theories requiring "suppositions" and "assumptions"! The chronology suggests that there was an effort to try to make the evidence fit the story that Corbett fired the shot. Before anyone realized that the bullet needed to be a pistol bullet, the bullet was described, twice, as a rifle bullet.

I notice you said nothing about the forensic evidence that the bullet was a rifle bullet and not a pistol bullet. High-velocity and low-velocity bullets do different kinds and degrees of damage, governed as they are by the laws of physics. The damage to the spine clearly indicates that the bullet was a rifle bullet and not the kind of bullet that Corbett claimed he fired. You might read Dr. Arnold's analysis on this in his book, pp. 264-265.

I am perfectly willing to believe that the man in the barn perhaps fell down as he tried to walk and that this is why the bullet transited the body at a substantially downward angle. But, if so, that means that the accounts that we have of what the man was doing when he was shot are false. And, according to Conger, the man dropped his weapon before he headed for the front of the barn, which means that whoever shot the man shot him when he was defenseless, which in turn shows that someone, or some persons, in the search party had no intention of taking the man alive.

But the biggest problem is the forensic evidence that the bullet was not the kind of bullet that Corbett claimed he used, which means that someone else must have shot the man.

[AussieMick]

Ok, Mike. Cut to the chase. I personally accept that it may have been a rifle. And the trajectory may indeed be downwards.

... rifle, trajectory downwards ... and yes, possibly someone other than Corbett killed the man ... so what?

[L Verge]

I am going to nudge the real forensic expert in this case, Wesley Harris of this forum, for his opinion on this. Wes is finishing a book on the subject of the weapons involved in the Lincoln assassination as well as the investigations conducted. He has spoken on these subjects at past Surratt conferences, and he knows his material.

[Steve]

(10-28-2018 04:52 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 11:35 PM)Steve Wrote:  Here's a link to the page of Dr. Arnold's book specifically about the type of weapon/bullet used:

https://books.google.com/books?id=9Ga_DA...22&f=false

On the page just prior to where the link opens, Arnold cites Leonard Guttridge's Jan. 1993 Navy Medicine article as his source for this information, here's a link to that article:

http://library.indstate.edu/rbsc/neff/PD...cation.pdf

The "rifle bullet" description Mike is referring to comes from the catalogue reference written for Booth's vertebrae for the Army Medical Museum in 1866. (Guttridge p. 23) That's a year after the assassination and the conspirator's trial! If Surgeon General Barnes believed the wound was made by a carbine and not Corbett's pistol, he sure didn't give any indication of that.

Yes, he did. He originally described it as a carbine bullet. Furthermore, the original card attached to the spine specimen quoted his original description, but the card, too, was later changed to indicate a pistol ball instead of a carbine bullet.

Quote:The actual wording used for the catalogue was "a conoidal carbine bullet entered the right side". Which was later corrected to "a conoidal pistol ball entered the right side". Nothing about this chronology suggests anything other than an error in wording for the description of a museum piece that was later corrected.

So you are assuming that this was just "an error in wording"?! And you guys talk about other theories requiring "suppositions" and "assumptions"! The chronology suggests that there was an effort to try to make the evidence fit the story that Corbett fired the shot. Before anyone realized that the bullet needed to be a pistol bullet, the bullet was described, twice, as a rifle bullet.

I notice you said nothing about the forensic evidence that the bullet was a rifle bullet and not a pistol bullet. High-velocity and low-velocity bullets do different kinds and degrees of damage, governed as they are by the laws of physics. The damage to the spine clearly indicates that the bullet was a rifle bullet and not the kind of bullet that Corbett claimed he fired. You might read Dr. Arnold's analysis on this in his book, pp. 264-265.

I am perfectly willing to believe that the man in the barn perhaps fell down as he tried to walk and that this is why the bullet transited the body at a substantially downward angle. But, if so, that means that the accounts that we have of what the man was doing when he was shot are false. And, according to Conger, the man dropped his weapon before he headed for the front of the barn, which means that whoever shot the man shot him when he was defenseless, which in turn shows that someone, or some persons, in the search party had no intention of taking the man alive.

But the biggest problem is the forensic evidence that the bullet was not the kind of bullet that Corbett claimed he used, which means that someone else must have shot the man.

If you have any source (primary or secondary that quotes a primary) that indicates Barnes used either of the terms "rifle" or "carbine" before the 1866 catalogue entry, please share. I just looked into the sources you provided yourself for this claim.

Here's the text of Barnes' original report to Stanton on the autopsy:

Surgeon General’s Office
Washington City, D.C.
April 27th, 1865

Hon: E.M. Stanton
Secretary of War

Sir,

I have the honor to report that in compliance with your orders, assisted by Dr. Woodward, USA, I made at 2 pm this day, a postmortem examination of the body of J. Wilkes Booth, lying on board the Monitor Montauk off the Navy Yard.

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

The cause of death was a gun shot wound in the neck – the ball entering just behind the sterno-cleido muscle – 2-1/2 inches above the clavicle – passing through the bony bridge of fourth and fifth cervical vertebrae – severing the spinal chord and passing out through the body of the sterno-cleido of the right side, 3 inches above the clavicle.

Paralysis of the entire body was immediate, and all the horrors of consciousness of suffering and death must have been present to the assassin during the two hours he lingered.

Very respectfully
Your obt servt.
J. K. Barnes
Surgeon General


Note that he used the term "ball", as in "pistol ball" (I've bolded it in the text above to make it easier to find).

As for Dr. Arnold's claim in his book about his forensic analysis of the Booth vertebrae, I don't have enough knowledge or expertise about the topic to have an informed opinion one way or the other on whether Arnold's analysis is sound or not. I was only responding to your argument that Barnes' original assessment of the wound being caused by a carbine was changed to a pistol to match Corbett's account for nefarious purposes.

[L Verge]

I know nothing about calibers of bullets, but if the claim is that the one that killed Booth was from a rifle, would it not have been of a higher caliber and different shape than a projectile used with a pistol?

Assuming that the 16th NY Cavalry would be equipped with the Spencer carbine that was pretty much standard issue for U.S. mounted troops at this stage of the war (or even a Sharps or Henry), would its bullet not do more damage to the tissue and spine than a slower moving pistol ball? Is the damage to the spine (taking into account notes that some damage has been done over the years) consistent with a cartridge-driven bullet or with one fired from a revolver?

Did I miss this in the confusing round of discussions on how Fake Booth was killed?

---

Just found an unrelated tidbit:

Interesting info on Wikipedia: In response [to Finis Bates’s book], the Maryland Historical Society published an account in 1913 by Baltimore mayor William M. Pegram, who had viewed Booth's remains upon the casket's arrival at the Weaver funeral home in Baltimore on February 18, 1869, for burial at Green Mount Cemetery. Pegram had known Booth well as a young man; he submitted a sworn statement that the body which he had seen in 1869 was Booth's.[166] Others positively identified this body as Booth at the funeral home, including Booth's mother, brother, and sister, along with his dentist and other Baltimore acquaintances.[11] Earlier, The New York Times had published an account by their reporter in 1911 detailing the burial of Booth's body at the cemetery and those who were witnesses.[154]

1. Pertinent citations at the end: Freiberger, Edward (February 26, 1911). "Grave of Lincoln's Assassin Disclosed at Last" (PDF). The New York Times. Retrieved February 10, 2009.
2. "On the 18th of February, 1869, Booth's remains were deposited in Weaver's private vault at Green Mount Cemetery awaiting warmer weather for digging a grave. Burial occurred in Green Mount Cemetery on June 22, 1869. Booth was an Episcopalian, and the ceremony was conducted by the Reverend Minister Fleming, James of Christ Episcopal Church, where Weaver was a sexton." (T. 5/25/95 at p. 117; Ex. 22H). Gorman & Williams Attorneys at Law: Sources on the Wilkes Booth case. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (September 1995), No. 1531; Archived January 3, 2009, at the Wayback Machine.
3. Pegram, William M. (December 1913). "The body of John Wilkes Booth". Journal. Maryland Historical Society: 1–4.

[mikegriffith1]

Regarding the type of bullet that killed the man in the barn, Dr. Arnold covers this, and I've quoted him on it, but I'll go to Dr. Barnes' first description of the bullet type, quoted in the January-February 1993 edition of Navy Medicine, to show that Dr. Barnes did in fact describe the bullet as a rifle bullet, also known as a "carbine bullet":

Quote:Barnes referred to a "gunshot wound." The Catalogue of the Surgical Section of the United States Army Medical Museum, published under his direction in 1866, describes the wound as caused by:

a conoidal carbine bullet [that] entered the right side, comminuting the base of the right lamina of the fourth vertebra, fracturing it longitudinally and separating it from the spinous process, at the same time fracturing the fifth through its pedicle and involving that transverse process. The missile passed directly through the canal with a right inclination downward and to the rear, emerging through the left bases of the fourth and fifth laminae, which are comminuted, and from which fragments were embedded in the muscles of the neck. The bullet in its course avoided the large cervical vessels. (Guttridge, "Identification and Autopsy of John Wilkes Booth," Navy Medicine, January-February 1993, p. 23, quoting The Catalogue of the Surgical Section of the United States Army Medical Museum, 1866, p. 58, emphasis added)

But, nine years later, in 1875, in The Medical and Surgical History of the War of the Rebellion, Barnes described the bullet as "a conoidal pistol ball." Furthermore, the original card attached to the specimen said the bullet was a carbine bullet, "but it was later changed to pistol ball there as well" (Arnold, p. 265).

Dr. Arnold on why the damage to the spine must have been done by a rifle bullet:

Quote:The picture of the specimen clearly demonstrates that the spinous processes of the vertebrae were completely blown away, the effects of a high-energy missile such as a rifle bullet, not a medium-energy missile such as a pistol ball.

High-energy missiles that traverse the spinal canal are especially damaging. The pulverized bone is blasted into the spinal canal, and a temporary cavity is caused by the secondary bone and neural tissue missiles, which may be as much as 25 times the frontal area of the bullet. The permanent track was at the C4-C5 (cervical vertebrae) level, and the temporary cavity would likely be about six inches in each direction. The proximal damage would have been to the nerve roots to the phrenic nerves, which supply the diaphragm. (p. 265)

So, Dr. Barnes' first description of the type of bullet agrees with Dr. Arnold's forensic and ballistics analysis of the kind of bullet that struck the man in the barn. Corbett could not have fired that bullet. Someone else shot the man, but Conger, Baker, and Doherty deemed it necessary to falsely claim that Corbett shot him.

Finally, I would just mention again that Dr. Arnold was not just any Navy surgeon. He was recognized highly enough by his peers and superiors in the Navy to be selected to train other Navy surgeons and was selected for advanced training at Bethesda Naval Hospital. In addition, he was selected for duty on a Fleet Surgical Team and became the commanding officer of Fleet Surgical Team 4. After he left the Navy (as a captain), he became an assistant coroner.

[AussieMick]

Er, Mike, you write "Corbett could not have fired that bullet. Someone else shot the man, but Conger, Baker, and Doherty deemed it necessary to falsely claim that Corbett shot him."

You forgot to include the fact that Corbett claimed that he himself shot the man.