Identification of Booth's body

[L Verge]

(11-09-2018 08:02 PM)Steve Wrote:  

(11-09-2018 07:41 PM)L Verge Wrote:  [Good luck getting a straight answer AussieMick... Col. Clarence Cobb is not mentioned in Dr. Arnold's book, btw. I had so much to do at work today that I didn't get a chance to check The Evidence book for Cobb, and I suspect that, if there is any reference to a Cobb other than Sgt. Silas Cobb, it will refer to young Cobb going to the same school with JWB many years ago.

---

Ref. Post 88 above - If that isn't just more of the same old same old, I don't know what is...

I checked and there is no Col. Clarence Cobb. In fact the only Clarence Cobb in the Union Army that I could find was the Pvt. Clarence F. Cobb mentioned by Christine above. After he was mustered out of the 2nd Maryland he was in Co. 86 of the 2nd Battalion Veterans Reserve Corp. He was reduced in rank from Corp. to Pvt. in 1862, so his grave marker show in the Find A Grave link is technically incorrect.

Wonder what the reason was for his being busted in rank?

[AussieMick]

Thanks, Laurie.
("Wonder what the reason was for his being busted in rank?" Impersonating a Colonel? )

[L Verge]

(11-09-2018 09:18 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  Thanks, Laurie.
("Wonder what the reason was for his being busted in rank?" Impersonating a Colonel? )

Great comeback!

[RJNorton]

Many thanks to Steve for sending these articles. Steve writes, "I have some articles relating to the re-interment of Booth's remains in 1869 to post to the forum. One is a republished 17 Feb. 1869 Boston Gazette article. There are two articles from the front page of the Baltimore Sun, one from the 17 Feb. 1869 edition and one from the 18 Feb. 1869 edition. There's also an article from page 7 of the 18 Feb. 1869 New York Herald.

[AussieMick]

Interesting ... thanks to you Roger and Steve.
The descriptions are very very similar. But one article describes the damaged leg as being the 'right' one , the other says the 'left'. To my mind, that's not unusual. Many people will describe another person's appearance from their own point of view; other people would describe the appearance from the person's point of view. ( Hope I've made that clear)

As for teeth, I notice one article refers to the teeth being perfect (but then that's very subjective ... it doesnt really tell us anything). Another has the identification being by a 'peculiarly plugged tooth'. Of course that does not necessarily mean that there were no other plugged teeth. Just that one of the teeth was peculiarly plugged.

By the way just to comment on some other points that have been raised :
Of course we all know, I think, that ancient dead bodies have been found with many teeth intact in the jaw ... but ... we also know (at least I do) that some of us have managed to lose several teeth in our allotted lifetime.

As for Booth's hair length. Well, I'm old-style and would suggest that the photos I've seen indicate that he didnt visit the barber's very often. Its long. But what's long to one person is normal to another. If he'd been in the army at the same time as me the Sergt would have been screaming "Get yer 'aircut, you 'orrible little man !!!" ... He may even have said that it was a foot long.

[L Verge]

(11-10-2018 07:07 AM)AussieMick Wrote:  Interesting ... thanks to you Roger and Steve.
The descriptions are very very similar. But one article describes the damaged leg as being the 'right' one , the other says the 'left'. To my mind, that's not unusual. Many people will describe another person's appearance from their own point of view; other people would describe the appearance from the person's point of view. ( Hope I've made that clear)

As for teeth, I notice one article refers to the teeth being perfect (but then that's very subjective ... it doesnt really tell us anything). Another has the identification being by a 'peculiarly plugged tooth'. Of course that does not necessarily mean that there were no other plugged teeth. Just that one of the teeth was peculiarly plugged.

By the way just to comment on some other points that have been raised :
Of course we all know, I think, that ancient dead bodies have been found with many teeth intact in the jaw ... but ... we also know (at least I do) that some of us have managed to lose several teeth in our allotted lifetime.

As for Booth's hair length. Well, I'm old-style and would suggest that the photos I've seen indicate that he didnt visit the barber's very often. Its long. But what's long to one person is normal to another. If he'd been in the army at the same time as me the Sergt would have been screaming "Get yer 'aircut, you 'orrible little man !!!" ... He may even have said that it was a foot long.

It depends on where one starts measuring the hair. If from the crown of one's head to the tip of the hair, a foot does not appear that long. However, if one only measures from the base of the skull (where the hair starts to flow loosely), a foot appears much longer.

I would also suspect that Booth would have had to have chopped his hair with a straight razor (if at all) during the escape. How skilled would he or Herold be at that? I'm not sure that standard scissors of today were around then -- sewing scissors, yes.

I believe our theorist mentioned an unnamed source a few posts back stating that the left leg was in very poor condition from the knee down. This would be consistent with the Ruggles/Bainbridge statement that they had seen Booth's leg and that it was in very bad shape and might likely have caused his death within a few days. Gangrene, perhaps? It can set in quickly if blood flow is cut off or damaged.

And finally, in reading newspaper reports from those days, one must consider that much of the article could be based on: hearsay, since most reporters were not present at the Arsenal exhumation or at either of the funeral parlors; journalistic "liberties," where some things were thrown in to make the article more interesting to the average reader of that day; and also padding of information in order to make the article longer, since reporters were often paid per line of type. Fake news was not invented in the 21st century, folks.

[Steve]

I agree with Laurie about being careful about the reliability of newspaper article from the time period. Now that Laurie has brought up the issue, I wonder where the source of the "plugged tooth" identification by Joseph Booth comes from. All the Baltimore Sun article says is that Joseph identified the body.

The description given by the Gazette reporter sounds like he may have gotten his information from Weaver himself. Note that the article said Booth's body had dark curly hair.

For reference the articles (top to bottom as Roger posted them) are:

1. Baltimore Gazette article, reprinted on page 4 of the Fairfield Herald of Winnsboro, South Carolina

2. Baltimore Sun - page 1, 18 Feb. 1869

3. New York Herald - page 7, 18 Feb. 1869

4. Baltimore Sun - page 1, 17 Feb. 1869

[J. Beckert]

(11-10-2018 01:02 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I would also suspect that Booth would have had to have chopped his hair with a straight razor (if at all) during the escape. How skilled would he or Herold be at that? I'm not sure that standard scissors of today were around then -- sewing scissors, yes.

Wasn't it stated somewhere that Booth had his haircut the morning of April 14th. at a barbershop in Washington?

[L Verge]

(11-10-2018 08:44 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:  

(11-10-2018 01:02 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I would also suspect that Booth would have had to have chopped his hair with a straight razor (if at all) during the escape. How skilled would he or Herold be at that? I'm not sure that standard scissors of today were around then -- sewing scissors, yes.

Wasn't it stated somewhere that Booth had his haircut the morning of April 14th. at a barbershop in Washington?

I believe so, and the barber either testified or gave a statement.

[RJNorton]

Joe and Laurie...you are both correct, but the testimony of the barber, Charles Wood, actually came during the 1867 John Surratt trial, not the 1865 conspiracy trial. Here is Wood's testimony:

======================================
Wednesday, July 3, 1867

Charles H. M. Wood, sworn and examined.

By Mr. Pierrepont:
Q. What is your business ?
A. I am a barber by trade.
Q. Have you been a barber in the city of Washington for some time ?
A. Yes, sir ; ever since I have been in the city.
Q. How many years ?
A. Since December, 1862.
Q. Where was your barber shop in April, 1865 ?
A. I came here on a Saturday, about the first of September, 1862, and I en-
gaged to go to work at Messrs. Booker & Stewart's barber shop, on E street,
near Grover's theatre, next to the old Union building.
Q. In this city?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you. working at the same shop now?
A. No, sir; I now have a barber shop under the Ebbitt House, near Four-
teenth street. I am now in business for myself.
Q. Did you know Booth by sight before the assassination ?
A. Very well, sir.
Q. Did you ever cut his hair ?
A. I have, frequently.
Q. Did you ever shave him ?
A. I have.
Q. You knew him well ?
A. Very well, sir.
The prisoner at the bar was here requested to stand up, which he did.
Q. Have you ever seen that man (pointing to the prisoner at the bar) before ?
A. 1 have.
Q. On the morning of the assassination did you see him ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you see him?
A. I saw him at Mr. Booker's barber shop.
Q. What did you do to him ?
A. I shaved him and dressed his hair.
Q. Will you tell us who came into the shop with him, if anybody ?
A. Mr. Booth came in, there were four persons who came together.
Q. Who were the four persons beside Booth and Surratt ?
A. A gentleman I take to be Mr. McLaughlin, they called him “Mac” and
from big appearance; (I having since seen the picture of Mr. McLaughlin,) I
should think it was him.
Q. Did he tell you where he had come from that morning — McLaughlin ?
A. They were speaking of BaltImore; the conversation between them was in
reference to some Baltimore—
Q. Between whom?
A. Between Mr. Booth, Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Surratt, the other gentle-
man that was with them had nothing to say ; he sat down nearly in the rear.
Q. Did you ever see the other man afterwards ?
A. I never saw either of the parties afterwards except this gentleman (the
prisoner.)
Q. Who was the other man, do you know ?
A. I did not know him.
Q. You may describe the man.
A. He was a short thick-set man with a full round head ; he had on dark
clothes which we generally term rebel clothes, and a black slouched hat.
Q. Did you cut Booth's hair that morning ?
A. I did ; I trimmed his hair round and dressed it.
Q. Won't you tell the jury what occurred between Booth and Surratt whilst
you were trimming Booth's hair ?
A. There was nothing particular that occurred
Q. What was said ?
A. Whilst I was waiting on Mr. Booth, Mr. Surratt was sitting just in the
rear of me; the thick-set man was sitting to the left of the looking glass, just
in the rear of my chair. The glass was next to the wall, and Mr. Surratt was
on the right side of the glass, the other one on the left hand. There were not
any words particularly that I remember said or interchanged ; but when I had
got through waiting on Mr. Booth, he (Mr. Booth) got out of the chair and ad-
vanced toward the back part of the shop; Mr. McLaughlin was in that direction
doing something about the glass. Mr. Surratt took my chair immediately on
Mr. Booths' getting out. During the time that I was spreading my hair gown
over him, and making other preparations for shaving him ; this other young
man, rather tall, with dark hair — 1 think not black but dark brown hair — rather
good looking, with a moustache, was figuring before the glass ; he had on a
black frock coat, and putting his hand in his pocket he took out two black braids ;
one of the braids with curls he put on the back of his head, allowing the curls to
hang down, he then took the other braid and put it on the front; it had curls
also, and they hung on the side. When he had done this he said; "John, how
does that look ?"
Q. Whom did he address as John ?
A. I do not know whether it was Mr. Surratt or Booth, but in making the
remark, he said "John." I turned round and said, "he would make a pretty
good looking woman, but he is rather tall." Says he, "Yes," in rather a jocular
manner, laughing at the time. He seemed to look taller to me when he put on
these curls than he did before, though I had not taken particular notice of him
before that. This time Mr. Surratt said to me : “Give me a nice shave and clean
me up nicely ; I am going away in a day or two."
Q. Will you state, when he said “Clean me up nicely” what his condition was
as to being clean or not?
A. He seemed to be a little dusty, as though he had been travelling some little
distance and wanted a little cleaning and dressing up, as I am frequently called
upon by gentlemen coming in after a short travel.
Q. Did he say anything to you about Booth ?
A Yes, sir.
Q. What was that ?
A. He asked me if I noticed that scar on Booth's neck. Says I, “Yes.”
Says he, " They say that is a boil, but it is not a boil; it was a pistol shot" I
observed, “ He must have gone a little too far to the front that time.” This
gentleman (Mr. Surratt) observed, “He like to have lost his head that time."
I then went on and completed the shaving operation. I shaved him clean all
round the face, with the exception of where his moustache was. He had a slight
mustache at the time.
Q. What did you do with the hair?
A. After I was done shaving, I washed him off in the usual way, dressed his
hair, and put on the usual tonics and pomade.
Q. Tell the jury about what time in the morning it was.
A. I think it was near about nine o'clock. I had had my breakfast
Q. Where had you been that morning ?
A. I had been up to Mr. Seward's, and had come down again.
Q. Where did you find Mr. Seward ?
A. In his room, third story.
Q. Was he up or in bed ?
A. He was up.
Q. Did you see any other gentlemen at Mr. Seward’s that morning ?
A. Yes, sir ; I think I did.
Q. Whom did you see ?
A. Mr. Stanton called. Mr. Seward was either on the bed, or on the chair
by the bed, when I shaved him. I do not remember now exactly which.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bradlev.
Q. Where did you commence to work after arriving in this city?
A. I commenced to work at Messrs. Booker & Stewart's, on E street.
Q. And continued to work there until you went to the Ebbitt House?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You say this thing occurred at the shop of Messrs. Booker & Stewart, about
nine o'clock in the morning?
A. I think it was about nine o'clock ?
Q. And you had been up to Mr. Seward's and shaved him ?
A. Yes, sir, and returned.
Q. Mr. Stanton was there ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who else was in the shop at the same time, do you remember?
A. There were several hands at work there at the time.
Q. What sort of a looking man was McLaughlin ?
A. The gentleman I have taken to be McLaughlin, they called him “Mac”
in referring to him, was a man quite as tall as Mr. Surratt, I think near about
the height of Mr. Surratt and Booth. They were all three nearly about one
height. Perhaps he might have been a little the tallest.
Q. Was he a fine looking man ?
A. Yes, sir ; he was what I would term a very handsome man.
Q. Do you remember his hair at all ?
A. It was very dark brown. I do not think it was black.
Q. Had he any beard on his face?
A. He had a moustache on, and, if I mistake not, an imperial ; but I am not so
sure about that. I am certain he had a moustache. I took more particular notice
of his hair and his size. He had on a black frockcoat. I think he had a black
silk hat, and light pantaloons.
Q. Do you remember how Mr. Surratt was dressed ?
A. He had on, I think, as near as my memory serves me, rather light clothes,
but I did not take particular notice of his clothes. As soon as he got into my
chair, I took up my hair-gown and spread it all over his clothes, so that you
could not see hardly anything except the tips of his pantaloons.
Q. You saw him while you were shaving Mr. Booth, did you not ?
A. He came in with the rest of the party.
Q. Could not you distinguish him as well as you could distinguish McLaugh-
lin and the other man ?
A. If I had taken that much notice. I took more particular notice of his head
and face.
Q. You had the same opportunity, however, to observe him as you had to
observe Mr. McLaughlin ?
A. As near as I can remember, the clothes he had on were rather light. I
cannot remember the particular kind of clothes, whether woollen, linen, or cotton.
Q. Do you remember what sort of a hat he wore ?
A. I did not take notice of his hat. Gentlemen generally come in there, take
their seats on the side next the wall, and immediately hang their hats on the
rack against the wall.
Q. You say he had no beard on his face?
A. No, sir ; he had a slight mustache.
Q. No imperial, goatee, or anything on his chin ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do I understand you that you had never seen any of these men but Booth
before that morning ?
A. I knew Booth very well. I had seen him in Baltimore, and cut his hair
when a boy.
Q. You had not seen the other three before that time ?
A. No, sir ; I do not think I had seen any of the others.
Q. And you have never seen them since, until you saw Mr. Surratt here ?
A. I live on E Street, just below here, and as I was going down to my dinner
one day, passing this court-house, he was coming out with the jailor. I stood
aside and looked. When I saw him I was utterly astounded. I instantly
thought I recognized in him the gentleman I had shaved and waited on imme-
diately after Mr. Booth, on the morning of the 1 4th of April. It made such an
impression on my mind that I spoke of it.
Q. When was it you met and recognized him ?
A. Last week, I think, Monday or Tuesday.
Q. Do you recollect whether there was anybody in the shop that morning ?
A. The young man that worked in the chair back of me, I think, was in
there. His name is Teebo ; he is a small man. He is now working in Nor-
folk.
Q. Do you know whether there were any other customers ?
A Well, about that time we were very much pressed, and we all had about
as much as we could do, there were so many strangers coming in. The shop
being next to the paymaster's office, soldiers used to come in there in perfect
droves.
Q. Particularly in the morning ?
A Yes, sir, generally pretty hard at work all day at that time.
Q. Was there anybody else there except yourself ?
A. The man who worked next to me in the next chair, I think, was gone to
breakfast about that time.
Q. Do you recollect about what time he went to breakfast ?
A. Some of us took our breakfast before we came to work. Others would be
at the shop and work until we came and then go to breakfast.
Q. What time did that man go to his breakfast ?
A. Between 8 and 9 o'clock, along thereabout
Q. What was his name ?
A. Robert Burton, I think ; I am not sure about the first name.
Q. Where is he ?
A. He is there working at the same place.
Q. Is he not one of the proprietors ?
A No, sir; he was working on the first chair on the left hand' as you enter the door.

[mikegriffith1]

I would just like to note that I see that no one has been able to cite a single known case in the history of forensic science where a body's appearance changed so drastically after 10 days under similar/worse conditions (1) that it "bore no resemblance" or "so little resemblance" to the person in life, (2) that it sprouted freckles on the face to the degree that it was described as heavily freckled, and (3) that even its lineaments "bore no resemblance" to the person in life.

I will also note that I provided numerous linked articles on cases where bodies were discovered outdoors after being exposed to the elements for 48-72 hours or more and where family members and/or friends were still able to identify them. The idea that 10 days of flight of the kind that Booth experienced could alter a person's appearance to the degree described above is unscientific and has no precedent in the history of forensic science.

I will further note that the witnesses at the 1869 identification described seeing features that disqualify the body as being that of Booth, such as hair that was 10-12 inches longer than Booth's hair, the wrong number of filled teeth (and, by the way, no one reported a tooth missing that was not noted as missing on the dental chart, which would have been the case if a filled tooth had fallen out or had been removed), and visible damage on or just below the left knee (there is no record that Booth suffered any such damage).

I find it revealing that at every point where Holt and Baker could have made the identification on the Montauk significantly stronger, if not indisputable, they chose not to do so. I also find it revealing that the War Department suppressed the fact that the body's face was heavily freckled and that the witnesses were initially shocked by the body's lack of resemblance to Booth. We did not learn those two crucial facts until decades later.

[Gene C]

With all those people called upon to view the remains, and with all those changes of appearance of the body,
who failed to identify the body as Booth's?

And how many people viewed the remains, commented on the condition of the body, but still identified the body as Booth's?

How many people who identified the body as Booth's, later changed their mind?

[L Verge]

(12-06-2018 04:41 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  I would just like to note that I see that no one has been able to cite a single known case in the history of forensic science where a body's appearance changed so drastically after 10 days under similar/worse conditions (1) that it "bore no resemblance" or "so little resemblance" to the person in life, (2) that it sprouted freckles on the face to the degree that it was described as heavily freckled, and (3) that even its lineaments "bore no resemblance" to the person in life.

I will also note that I provided numerous linked articles on cases where bodies were discovered outdoors after being exposed to the elements for 48-72 hours or more and where family members and/or friends were still able to identify them. The idea that 10 days of flight of the kind that Booth experienced could alter a person's appearance to the degree described above is unscientific and has no precedent in the history of forensic science.

I will further note that the witnesses at the 1869 identification described seeing features that disqualify the body as being that of Booth, such as hair that was 10-12 inches longer than Booth's hair, the wrong number of filled teeth (and, by the way, no one reported a tooth missing that was not noted as missing on the dental chart, which would have been the case if a filled tooth had fallen out or had been removed), and visible damage on or just below the left knee (there is no record that Booth suffered any such damage).

I find it revealing that at every point where Holt and Baker could have made the identification on the Montauk significantly stronger, if not indisputable, they chose not to do so. I also find it revealing that the War Department suppressed the fact that the body's face was heavily freckled and that the witnesses were initially shocked by the body's lack of resemblance to Booth. We did not learn those two crucial facts until decades later.

Bless your heart, Mr. Griffith, I think you have finally come full circle. We're back to freckles and spurious identification claims. Can we go home now?

[Steve Whitlock]

I find it revealing that at every point where Holt and Baker could have made the identification on the Montauk significantly stronger, if not indisputable, they chose not to do so. I also find it revealing that the War Department suppressed the fact that the body's face was heavily freckled and that the witnesses were initially shocked by the body's lack of resemblance to Booth. We did not learn those two crucial facts until decades later.

Mike,

If the person identified as John Wilkes Booth was not really him, but in fact the Mr Boyd as he represented himself, i.e. James William Boyd, a Confederacy Capt from TN, and POW who got a release due to his wife's death circa 1865, perhaps that could, or not, be of real significance for your case.

I seem to recall mention that the hand of John Wilkes Booth had the initials JWB tattooed between the thumb and forefinger of his left hand, and I have pointed out what appears to be some dark lettering in that area for a photo of John Wilkes Booth. However, in reading the various posts and other documentation there are reports of initials on the back of the hand or even forearm of the body in question. Also, mention of the letters in both places. I got lost in trying to determine the final consensus of those making positive identification of John Wilkes Booth as to whether his initials were there between the thumb and forefinger of his left hand.

Perhaps you can clear that up for me. Meanwhile, nobody seems to know what became of that James William Boyd, other than a supposed letter to a son in TX, and there were at least two sons there, Walter Preston Boyd and George H. Boyd, which stated he wanted to see the son, but never showed up. Such a mysterious disappearance would make one wonder whether such a thing as a body switch could be possible, and wouldn't he have to bear a resembalnce to JOhn Wilkes Booth.

The first attached photo is from Wikipedia, and the second from a Family Tree. On the 2nd photo there is a clear view of his left hand, and no letters are tattooed between the thumb and forefinger. I have no idea whether he could have his initials elsewhere, nor how authentic the photo is.

Something verifiable, such as the tattooed initials, or dna, would give your position considerable heft. You might want to pursue that. I wasn't aware that there is nobody living to verify mtdna for the hair of John Wilkes Booth; however, I don't know whether that is true of James William Boyd.

Steve W.

[AussieMick]

(12-06-2018 05:32 PM)Gene C Wrote:  With all those people called upon to view the remains, and with all those changes of appearance of the body,
who failed to identify the body as Booth's?

And how many people viewed the remains, commented on the condition of the body, but still identified the body as Booth's?

How many people who identified the body as Booth's, later changed their mind?

I'd be interested to know all of this, too.

Also, if you'd be so kind, could you tell us the date of Booth's dental chart, how many teeth were recorded on it ... and how many were in the body at autopsy.


(As an aside ... if I'd been on the run through the countryside and across rivers, without many changes of clothes for almost 2 weeks, maybe sleeping rough some nights, uncertain who was my friend and knowing that I'd hang if I were caught, with a smashed leg which must have been hurting like anything for all that time, having stumbled/dragged from a burning and very smokey barn, and having died after several hours from a very very painful gunshot wound ... I doubt that I would have looked my normal debonair self. My own mother may have been surprised at my appearance and , yes, even at my "lineaments" .... lineaments? Thanks Mike , this forum is certainly improving my vocabulary).