Identification of Booth's body

[L Verge]

Why was only one autopsy photo taken of the body? And why did that photo quickly disappear? How do you "lose" such a historic piece of evidence?

Sorry, Mike, but I forgot to comment on the above comment that you made earlier. I don't have the time nor the inclination to find a very important posting regarding researcher John Elliott's discovery of an article by Lawrence Gardner, the son of Alexander Gardner who went with his father aboard the monitor to photograph the prisoners. According to Lawrence, they did not photograph Booth's body. In the famous newspaper sketch of the "autopsy" done later by Alexander Gardner, he actually drew himself into the picture, evidently to indicate that he was not doing any photography.

I guess that you will counter that the government refused to let him photograph Booth's body because they didn't want it known that they had gotten the wrong man. I think it's more likely that the gov't. wanted no reminders left of the villain - reminders that Southern sympathizers could immortalize or Union supporters could desecrate. Such was the reasoning behind the secret burial at the Arsenal and the unmarked grave in Green Mount. Our modern examples of desecration - from Lincoln statues to a slew of Confederate ones - should prove to us that, in 1865, those in command understood human behavior...

[RJNorton]

Laurie, John Elliott's analysis is here:

https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussi...h#pid30742

[Warren]

So which of these two woodcuts/engravings best depicts the autopsy?

http://i.gettysburgdaily.com/imgs/Booth0...071213.jpg from Lafayette C. Baker's "The United States Secret Service in the Late War" or,

https://rogerjnorton.com/montauk.jpg bearing a the notation "HW May 13, 1865" (obviously Harper's Weekly)

Note the difference in the autopsy table (barrels vs. foldable table), the deck plating of the monitor, and the Harper's Weekly showing mourning crepe on the two gentlemen at left.

Seems I heard that barrels were used as support for the autopy table, and the deck plating looks like what an ironclad's should be, so I would vote for Baker's, but I'm usually wrong.

[RJNorton]

Warren, I do not know if this will help, but Dave Taylor discussed this topic here:

https://boothiebarn.com/tag/bowling-green/

[Warren]

Thanks, Roger! That supplies some more information, but it appears that Alexander Gardner appears in both of the sketches I linked above, yet they appear to have been done by different artists (at different times?). Most of the same people are in the both sketches and it appears they were drawn minutes, if not seconds, apart, based on their positions. The bottom sketch, above, from Baker's book, I think draws the deck of the Montauk more accurately, as it appears to have iron plates in a pattern to prevent the effects of plunging fire. Most of the photos of monitors I was able to look up have similar iron plate (as opposed to plank) decking. The Montauk did have planking like the top sketch, but it was below decks. Because of that, and for some vague recollection, I think the barrels were used to support the autopsy board, and it wasn't a fold-up table like in the top sketch.

If the the two sketches were by different artists, then I wonder who the other one was? Probably just another reporter present, I guess. No evidence of a camera being present in either drawing, though.

[L Verge]

(10-02-2018 02:09 PM)Warren Wrote:  Thanks, Roger! That supplies some more information, but it appears that Alexander Gardner appears in both of the sketches I linked above, yet they appear to have been done by different artists (at different times?). Most of the same people are in the both sketches and it appears they were drawn minutes, if not seconds, apart, based on their positions. The bottom sketch, above, from Baker's book, I think draws the deck of the Montauk more accurately, as it appears to have iron plates in a pattern to prevent the effects of plunging fire. Most of the photos of monitors I was able to look up have similar iron plate (as opposed to plank) decking. The Montauk did have planking like the top sketch, but it was below decks. Because of that, and for some vague recollection, I think the barrels were used to support the autopsy board, and it wasn't a fold-up table like in the top sketch.

If the the two sketches were by different artists, then I wonder who the other one was? Probably just another reporter present, I guess. No evidence of a camera being present in either drawing, though.

There were scores of spectators on shore who had some view of the "inquest" (a more proper term - also post-mortem examination- than "autopsy"). Some talented sketch artists could have made drawings also. And, I doubt that the details of the ship's construction were as important to the public as the drawing of the inquest and the folks involved.

I just remembered also that we left out one very important point in the identification of Booth's body -- the stick pin that was found holding together a tear in his undershirt. That stick pin had been a gift from Booth's friend, Dan Bryant, and was so engraved. If that body was not Booth's, then how did his piece of jewelry get on that undershirt?

[Rob Wick]

Taking a break from cataloguing my books, I stumbled on this discussion. Several years ago when I was researching the life of Everton Conger, I came across an interview that Conger did several years after the capture of Booth. Conger was one of the people who identified Booth's body. Conger said he first knew it was Booth in the barn because he recognized his voice. He later recognized Booth's face because he had seen him in some of the gambling halls of Washington. Steve Miller, my good friend, and the man who has forgotten more about the Garrett Farm Patrol than I'll ever know, never believed that Conger knew Booth because of that, but I remain convinced. The reason? At the time Conger gave the interview, he was in Montana. He had a reputation among his political enemies as an unreformed gambler (he was suspended from the Montana Territorial Supreme Court in part due to his gambling habits). To admit that he was a gambler as far back as the Civil War was ammunition his enemies could have used against him.

Also, someone asked why Byron Baker took Booth's body back against the express orders of Edward P. Doherty. That's easy. Doherty was not in charge of the patrol. He had charge of the volunteers from the 16th New York, but Conger was in charge of the overall patrol, per the man who sent them into the field, Lafe Baker. I discuss this in the article I wrote on the battle for the War Department rewards for the Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association.

Finally, on another matter, I received proofs of my article on Tarbell and Lincoln in Indiana from the Indiana Magazine of History. It is still on track to be published in the December issue. When I get a better handle on how I can make copies available, I will let Roger know.

Best
Rob

[Gene C]

Warren,
I remember in reading the "Lincoln Image", competing newspapers would frequently copy other artist's illustrations and print them.
They didn't have to be at the scene to make their drawings. Sometimes they would change some of the details to make them more appealing to their readers.

[RJNorton]

Warren, I wrote Dave Taylor about this, and Dave responded as follows:

"While the engraving from Baker's book looks more accurate in terms of the ship layout and decor, it wasn't published until later and is likely just an artist's rendering of the scene. I highly doubt any actual artist took down that particular engraving at the time. Rather, I think whoever drew it looked at the Harper's engraving and expanded upon that. The Harper's engraving, we have recently learned due to the auction, was done by Alexander Gardner in lieu of a photograph. While he gets some of the details of the ship incorrect, I'd trust his display of the men and layout more than the one from Baker's book. Still, it's likely Gardner reconstructed the scene from memory before giving it to the folks at Harper's."

[L Verge]

(10-02-2018 04:09 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Taking a break from cataloguing my books, I stumbled on this discussion. Several years ago when I was researching the life of Everton Conger, I came across an interview that Conger did several years after the capture of Booth. Conger was one of the people who identified Booth's body. Conger said he first knew it was Booth in the barn because he recognized his voice. He later recognized Booth's face because he had seen him in some of the gambling halls of Washington. Steve Miller, my good friend, and the man who has forgotten more about the Garrett Farm Patrol than I'll ever know, never believed that Conger knew Booth because of that, but I remain convinced. The reason? At the time Conger gave the interview, he was in Montana. He had a reputation among his political enemies as an unreformed gambler (he was suspended from the Montana Territorial Supreme Court in part due to his gambling habits). To admit that he was a gambler as far back as the Civil War was ammunition his enemies could have used against him.

Also, someone asked why Byron Baker took Booth's body back against the express orders of Edward P. Doherty. That's easy. Doherty was not in charge of the patrol. He had charge of the volunteers from the 16th New York, but Conger was in charge of the overall patrol, per the man who sent them into the field, Lafe Baker. I discuss this in the article I wrote on the battle for the War Department rewards for the Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association.

Finally, on another matter, I received proofs of my article on Tarbell and Lincoln in Indiana from the Indiana Magazine of History. It is still on track to be published in the December issue. When I get a better handle on how I can make copies available, I will let Roger know.

Best
Rob

Rob - Thank you for providing the link to your excellent 2011 article in the Journal. I remember reading it then and thinking how good it was. I hope that other members here will take advantage of your research and click on it now.

[Dennis Urban]

Laurie's reference to the stick pin is a clincher for me though I never doubted the body was that of JWB.

Since Warren asked, I searched my original copy of Baker's book, published in 1867 by Jones Brothers & Company, Philadelphia. The engraving is signed REA SHARP. Other engravings in the book are twice signed; REA = SHARP PHILA and F.B. Schell Del. So one was the artist and one was the engraver. Maybe research can determine who is which. I surmise the artist copied the Harper's Weekly drawing and took some liberties. REA is obviously initials from someone in Philadelphia. Philadelphia has a Sharp Street in the old city. Schell was obviously from Delaware, just south of Philly. Both may have been employees of Jones Brothers.

[Warren]

Thanks all for the input. And thanks Dennis for the info about the artist/engraver on the barrel sketch. All I could make out for the signature was REA, and was at a loss for the other part.

It is in all likelyhood one artist copying another's work, yet something still troubles me about them. Just can't articulate it.

I was always on the fence about whether a photograph existed but the preponderance of the evidence seems to be against it. Won't stop me from hoping it does, though.

---

Wow! Thanks, again, Dennis. A quick internet search turned up this:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/51992558@N00/12437409875

So it appears that Schell was a sketcher. Wonder if he was actually there, or merely "appropriated" Gardner's?

[mikegriffith1]

(10-01-2018 06:40 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Why was only one autopsy photo taken of the body? And why did that photo quickly disappear? How do you "lose" such a historic piece of evidence?

Sorry, Mike, but I forgot to comment on the above comment that you made earlier. I don't have the time nor the inclination to find a very important posting regarding researcher John Elliott's discovery of an article by Lawrence Gardner, the son of Alexander Gardner who went with his father aboard the monitor to photograph the prisoners. According to Lawrence, they did not photograph Booth's body. In the famous newspaper sketch of the "autopsy" done later by Alexander Gardner, he actually drew himself into the picture, evidently to indicate that he was not doing any photography.

I guess that you will counter that the government refused to let him photograph Booth's body because they didn't want it known that they had gotten the wrong man. I think it's more likely that the gov't. wanted no reminders left of the villain - reminders that Southern sympathizers could immortalize or Union supporters could desecrate. Such was the reasoning behind the secret burial at the Arsenal and the unmarked grave in Green Mount. Our modern examples of desecration - from Lincoln statues to a slew of Confederate ones - should prove to us that, in 1865, those in command understood human behavior...

James Wardell, the detective who accompanied Gardner, said Gardner took one photograph and that he watched the photo being developed and then took the photo and the plate to Baker.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/d...159798338/

---

(10-02-2018 06:49 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(10-02-2018 04:09 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Taking a break from cataloguing my books, I stumbled on this discussion. Several years ago when I was researching the life of Everton Conger, I came across an interview that Conger did several years after the capture of Booth. Conger was one of the people who identified Booth's body. Conger said he first knew it was Booth in the barn because he recognized his voice. He later recognized Booth's face because he had seen him in some of the gambling halls of Washington. Steve Miller, my good friend, and the man who has forgotten more about the Garrett Farm Patrol than I'll ever know, never believed that Conger knew Booth because of that, but I remain convinced. The reason? At the time Conger gave the interview, he was in Montana. He had a reputation among his political enemies as an unreformed gambler (he was suspended from the Montana Territorial Supreme Court in part due to his gambling habits). To admit that he was a gambler as far back as the Civil War was ammunition his enemies could have used against him.

Also, someone asked why Byron Baker took Booth's body back against the express orders of Edward P. Doherty. That's easy. Doherty was not in charge of the patrol. He had charge of the volunteers from the 16th New York, but Conger was in charge of the overall patrol, per the man who sent them into the field, Lafe Baker. I discuss this in the article I wrote on the battle for the War Department rewards for the Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association.

Finally, on another matter, I received proofs of my article on Tarbell and Lincoln in Indiana from the Indiana Magazine of History. It is still on track to be published in the December issue. When I get a better handle on how I can make copies available, I will let Roger know.

Best
Rob

Rob - Thank you for providing the link to your excellent 2011 article in the Journal. I remember reading it then and thinking how good it was. I hope that other members here will take advantage of your research and click on it now.

Doherty was regular Army, while Baker and Conger were private citizens who had just been temporarily sworn-in as "special detectives," who were temporarily given their old ranks back, and who were directed by Lafayette Baker to accompany Doherty's patrol.

In any case, the fact remains that Luther Baker took off with the body for over three hours. During that time, he also allowed Jett to escape.

[L Verge]

James Wardell, the detective who accompanied Gardner, said Gardner took one photograph and that he watched the photo being developed and then took the photo and the plate to Baker.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/d...159798338/

I'm aware of Wardell's claim - made thirty years later - and also the article (in which Timothy O'Sullivan is identified as Gardner's assistant). I have never researched James Wardell, so cannot comment on his veracity. Personally, if he had any ties to Lafayette Baker, I would not trust him.

Just as an aside, I searched American Brutus for information on the photographing (or not) of the body and found no reference to Gardner, Wardell, or the photograph. Knowing what an excellent researcher Mike Kauffman is, I find that strange -- unless he didn't believe the evidence as known at that time, before John Elliott's research turned up the Lawrence Gardner version. Like many of us, Mike has spent a lifetime trying to dispel wrong information and probably found it better to ignore the subject than to repeat possibly bad history.

[mikegriffith1]

(09-29-2018 06:42 PM)L Verge Wrote:  You have not read enough of the excellent, well-researched books, articles, even the responses on this forum. Just a day or so ago, I gave the explanation for the "freckles." I believe the medical term is livor mortis - look it up. Also, the plugged tooth dental record was presented to the folks by Dr. Joseph Adrian Booth at the 1869 exhumation and was identified in the funeral parlor behind Ford's Theatre as the body awaited transport to Baltimore. The late-John C. Brennan did quite a bit of research on Dr. Merrill.

And, I don't believe that there were any identification reports attached to the "autopsy" - such as it was. The doctors pretty much just reported the cause of death. The identification was a different topic. Mike, I just bet that if you had been Booth back in 1865 and had been on the run for 12 days with a good deal of exposure to the elements and possible mishandling of your body after death, you might not be in the best of shape either.

I could continue, but at this point I suspect that I'm boring those on this forum who have cut their teeth on the Lincoln assassination story and don't want to hear more postulating on the "Booth escaped" theory. I am going to ask once more, have you read at least Michael Kauffman's American Brutus?

Regardless of why they did not mention it, the fact remains that neither Woodward nor Banes documented the presence of the initials "JWB" on the left hand in their autopsy report.

If Merrill was there, where is his report? Why is he not listed in the official records as having been there?

The whole thing smells to high heaven of cover-up and fraud.

Stanton could have easily had numerous people who knew Booth well come and ID the body, not to mention the accomplices on the Montauk. He also could have had Booth family members come and ID the body. He did neither.

We have only the hotel clerk's word that he saw the JWB tattoo. No one else mentioned seeing it.

Most of the 14 people who ID'd the body did so based on its "general appearance."

I do not buy the explanation for the freckles as some kind of post-mortem manifestation.

In his later years, Dr. May, even though he went along with the ID of the body as Booth, stated that never before had he seen a body change so radically in appearance from how it looked alive.

I see several problems with the 1869 ID, starting with the fact that there are several conflicting accounts of it. Anyway, by that time, both the Booths and the War Department had strong motivation to pronounce the body as Booth's.

I think the the 1873 picture of "John R. Wilkes" bears a remarkable resemblance to Booth, and so did Dr. Lawrence Angell of the Smithsonian Institution, as I discuss in my article on the evidence that Booth escaped.

I have not read Kauffman's American Brutus. I have read Terry Alford's Fortune's Fool: The Life of John Wilkes Booth, Booth's sister's book, and what's left of Booth's diary. I plan on reading Kauffman's book. It's on my list of books to read.