Identification of Booth's body

[davg2000]

I don’t know exactly how many times Mike Griffith has posted about Lincoln’s assassination. There are many posts, though, beginning some time back. I’ve tried to remain current with his posts and the responses to what he’s said. I am struck by this: I can’t recall reading any response which agrees with him. (Maybe I missed one?)

The point is that, after all of this time and his effort, he has failed to convince careful, qualified readers here. That’s his problem. No one that I’ve read agrees with him. It’s not personal—just no one thinks he’s right. And it is not the job of those who disagree with him to convince him.

Some time ago a woman who sincerely believed that she had the only photograph of Abraham and Mary Lincoln posing together became sarcastic and insulting when she, too, couldn’t convince anyone here. (Readers had pointed out good reasons why the daguerreotype wasn’t the Lincolns.) She eventually disappeared. Although I will grant that Mike is a more articulate writer than Pamela, and is less sarcastic, but more patronizing, he’s still up against years of careful, thoughtful study by impartial researchers who have nothing to gain by reinforcing error and everything to gain by writing the truth.

[Rob Wick]

In 1932, the literary giant Rupert Hughes spoke before the Pacific Coast branch of the American Historical Association on the pitfalls of the biographer. Early on Hughes said "Among the most embarrassed persons on earth is the biographer who sets out blithely to brush 'with hasty steps the dews away to meet the sun upon the upland lawn,' only to stumble into pitfalls containing unsuspected facts derogatory to his chosen hero or thesis. Even worse is coming across unsuspected virtues in one's chosen villain or anti-thesis."

Hughes spoke to one of the biggest issues that faces the biographer, which is how to keep from falling in love with one's subject, or seeing one's subject as the devil incarnate. When I first began to study Everton Conger I had no preconceived ideas about him or any windmills to tilt at. All I wanted to do was to learn more about someone whose home I drove by on my way to work every day. As time passed, and I slowly uncovered items on Conger that hadn't seen the light of day for decades, I began to find myself admiring the man Steve Miller referred to as the "tough old bird." I freely admit that I became a fan of Conger, not only for his role in the capture of Booth, but for the life he lived long before the Civil War and even longer after it. Everton Conger was someone I would have loved knowing.

When I interviewed his granddaughter, who was in her late 90s at the time, I caught her at a time when her mind was sapped by a remoteness common to those of her age. Yet, even though she was wrong on some facts, the love she felt for her grandfather was as sharp as ever. When I saw the picture of her sitting on her grandfather's lap, it brought him to life in a way that documents cannot. In all the things she said about her grandfather, she refused to make him into a marble figure by acknowledging that his marriage was very rocky and during the last few decades of his life he was trapped because divorce to him was unthinkable.

I uncovered other things that I imagine many family members would rather have seen kept under wraps. I believe that to his dying day Everton Conger was addicted to morphine and was an alcoholic. In 1906 when Congress took up his pension, the document filed acknowledged that it took copious amounts of both just for him to get through the day. In 1912 his back was broken when he was run over by a car, which would also require even more opiates. Yet, he certainly wasn't the only soldier so addicted.

Conger loved to gamble and when he served on the Territorial Supreme Court of Montana he often played cards in what would likely be termed a brothel. Whether he ever visited prostitutes I don't know, but I do know that during the first three or so years of his term on the bench his wife and family stayed behind in Ohio because she didn't want to live out west (which further contributed to their estrangement). Conger was lonely, addicted to drugs and alcohol, and soon to find his life dragged through a bitter public humiliation because of territorial politics.

He lost one son to suicide while another drowned in a 200-foot deep well. But it was his daughter, Margaret's death in 1918 that broke his spirit. Only two months after her death from pernicious anemia, Conger suffered a massive stroke that as I once wrote "accomplished what two Confederate mini balls and a saber could not."

Even though Conger got $15,000 of the reward money, he lost most of it when he invested in Lafayette Baker's Michigan hotel venture. Part of the reason he moved to southern Illinois in the early 1870s was because he needed the support of his family. His entire life was devoted to making money and trying to keep a roof over his family's head. He studied law in his brother's law office so he could have an income and later tried his hand at ranching. Although I never found the reason, it took ten years before his estate was settled.

And, of course, there was his wounding both in 1862 and 1864 during the war. In 1862 he was shot through the hips and received a saber wound on the wrist. He was believed dead by his comrades, who left him behind. He suffered throughout the cold October night before being discovered alive. His wounds were so severe it took him over a year to return to duty. In 1864 during the Wilson-Kautz Raid, Conger was shot through the hips again. He was an easy target because he had to ride a horse given that walking was nearly impossible for him due to his 1862 wounds.

If there was one person who never should have been on the Garrett Farm Patrol, it was Everton Conger. Yet Lafayette Baker wanted him on the expedition. There were other members of the National Detective Police who could have been put on the patrol, but Baker wanted Conger. Why? Well, Baker knew that Conger, who had field command of the First District of Columbia Cavalry during his time with the regiment, would persevere until the job was finished. And he did.

So yes, I freely admit that I hold a deep admiration for Everton Conger. I get visibly angry when someone who knows absolutely nothing about Conger, and what's more doesn't even try to learn, spouts off idiotic nonsense to try and promote this tripe.

Given that I've come to the realization that to continue in this "dialogue" only serves to give credibility to the nonsensical claims already made here, this is my last posting on this. Those who want to believe this garbage will. Those who want to study history will see through this mirage.

Best
Rob

[L Verge]

Rob - A wonderful post, and I don't want to see you stop posting because you can bring so much knowledge to the table. However, I certainly understand your frustration in trying to deal with someone "who is so blind he does not want to see and so deaf, he does not want to hear."

That said, would you allow me to publish what you just posted in an upcoming issue of the Surratt Conger - no editing except for removing the last two paragraphs?

[Rob Wick]

Feel free, Laurie to publish it whenever you'd like. Just let me know when it appears so I can get a copy.

Thanks.

Best
Rob

[tom82baur]

(12-21-2018 09:26 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 09:09 AM)tom82baur Wrote:  Since you claim that the body was Boyd and NOT Booth, and you further claim that there is no scientific precedent "in the history of forensic science where a body underwent just one of the impossible changes under conditions even halfway similar to Booth's flight", ('freckles' for example) and since the body on the Montauk had 'freckles', please show what evidence you have found that proves that Boyd was 'freckle-faced'.

If the body = Not Booth; and the body = Boyd; AND the body was 'freckled'; then Boyd = was 'freckled'. This is the necessary conclusion, following your logic. Please share your proof.

And, Mike, could you also please respond to wsanto's post. wsanto is a medical doctor who posted that ecchymosis would not develop if you broke the leg of a corpse. So if the remains on the Montauk were Boyd's, then no ecchymosis would have developed because his tibia was broken after he died (as reported by you). But considerable ecchymosis was indeed reported by Dr. Barnes during the post-mortem examination, and to me, this is definite evidence the body was Booth's, not Boyd's.

I just want to note that Mr. Griffith has so far failed to respond, or even acknowledge, the points raised above, despite repeated requests. Rather than respond, he has now changed the subject, as Laurie Verge has noted several times. Can we have an answer, Mr. Griffith, or are these questions too silly, or perhaps inconvenient for you? Pray tell.

[mikegriffith1]

(12-28-2018 11:15 PM)tom82baur Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 09:26 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 09:09 AM)tom82baur Wrote:  Since you claim that the body was Boyd and NOT Booth, and you further claim that there is no scientific precedent "in the history of forensic science where a body underwent just one of the impossible changes under conditions even halfway similar to Booth's flight", ('freckles' for example) and since the body on the Montauk had 'freckles', please show what evidence you have found that proves that Boyd was 'freckle-faced'.

If the body = Not Booth; and the body = Boyd; AND the body was 'freckled'; then Boyd = was 'freckled'. This is the necessary conclusion, following your logic. Please share your proof.

And, Mike, could you also please respond to wsanto's post. wsanto is a medical doctor who posted that ecchymosis would not develop if you broke the leg of a corpse. So if the remains on the Montauk were Boyd's, then no ecchymosis would have developed because his tibia was broken after he died (as reported by you). But considerable ecchymosis was indeed reported by Dr. Barnes during the post-mortem examination, and to me, this is definite evidence the body was Booth's, not Boyd's.

I just want to note that Mr. Griffith has so far failed to respond, or even acknowledge, the points raised above, despite repeated requests. Rather than respond, he has now changed the subject, as Laurie Verge has noted several times. Can we have an answer, Mr. Griffith, or are these questions too silly, or perhaps inconvenient for you? Pray tell.

I haven't been checking the forum much for the last week or so, with Christmas and all. Shall I repeat the numerous questions that I have asked that have gone unanswered? Anyway. . . .

One, there is no extant photograph of Boyd that is clear enough and zoomed in enough to enable one to determine if he had freckles. But we know that Booth did not have freckles, yet two witnesses noted that the body on the Montauk was heavily/very much freckled.

Two, ecchymosis? Yeah, uh, that's just a fancy word for bruising. Boyd could have bruised his ankle or bruised his leg just above the ankle. Also, Dr. May said the right leg was the broken leg and that it was very much blackened. We do know that Boyd had a broken leg or a leg injury because he was last seen using crutches.

Three, Boyd was 41, which would explain why Dr. May said the body on the Montauk looked "much older" than Booth looked the last time he'd seen him, which was just over a year earlier. When Rollins was shown a picture of Booth less than 48 hours before the barn shooting, he had no problem recognizing the picture as Booth, and the only difference he noted between the picture and how Booth looked when he saw him was that Booth had no mustache when he saw him. Rollins didn't say anything like "and, oh yeah, when I saw him, Booth looked a lot older than he does in the picture."

Four, you folks still need to explain the discrepancy in the dental evidence. The body examined in 1869 only had one filling. If you're going to speculate that the filling had fallen out, you need to explain why no one noted such a discrepancy with the dental chart that they had in hand. If the filling had fallen out, the teeth would not have matched the dental chart.

Five, speaking of dental evidence, where is Dr. Merrill's report on his viewing of the body on the Montauk? Why didn't Holt take a statement from Merrill like he did with all the other identification witnesses? Why wasn't Merrill listed as a witness? Isn't it self-evident that if Merrill had provided a solid identification, especially one based on dental evidence, Holt would have taken his statement and Merrill's presence on the Montauk would have been officially noted?

Six, you folks also need to explain why none of the witnesses, not even the doctors, noted a single one of the scars that Booth was known to have, some of which should have been rather obvious. I discuss this in "Vanishing Evidence: Three Problems with the Claim that John Wilkes Booth Was Killed in 1865."

Seven, you folks also need to explain how the body viewed in 1869 could have had hair that was nearly a foot longer than Booth's? You'll recall that William Pegram, who knew Booth and had seen him many times, said that the hair on the corpse's head "had grown probably nearly a foot in length." Back then people believed that your hair kept growing after you died, but we now know that hair and nails grow by only a fraction of an inch, if at all, after death. All of the photos of Booth show that he kept his hair at a consistent length. So obviously the body that Pegram saw had hair that was "nearly a foot" longer than he had ever seen Booth's hair to be.

Eight, you folks also need to explain why the body at the 1869 "identification" had noticeable damage on/just below the knee, when no such damage was noted on the body on the Montauk, and Booth was not known to have suffered any such damage.

You guys can keep ignoring the scientifically problematic aspects of the two so-called "identifications" of the body as Booth, but that won't make them go away.

[Rob Wick]

If I had any wishes for the new year, it would be that you understand we don't have to defend anything. You have to prove your point by documented evidence, which so far you haven't.

ev·i·dence
/ˈevədəns/
noun
noun: evidence

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
synonyms proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation "they found evidence of his plotting"

Best
Rob

(Yeah, I know I said I was through. Hopefully now)

[Gene C]

(12-29-2018 03:44 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  You guys can keep ignoring the scientifically problematic aspects of the two so-called "identifications" of the body as Booth, but that won't make them go away.

One, the two people you refer to that stated the body was freckled also clearly stated the body was Booth's.
The "freckles" don't prove anything, because that "evidence" is surpassed by a clear and definitive identification of the body by the same witness.

Three, Boyd was 41. So what. So what if the body looked older to Dr. May than the last time he saw it.
Dr May still states clearly the body was Booth's.

I see no need to go further with your speculation, when you haven't overcome this first hurdle in your discussion.

[Christine]

I think I (along with others) gave several scientific possibilities for "freckles."

[AussieMick]

"So obviously the body that Pegram saw had hair that was "nearly a foot" longer than he had ever seen Booth's hair to be."
Some comments on this ...

I'll take your word (and that is with great effort, considering past experience in reading your posts) that Pegram had seen Booth many times ... and even though you dont say how recently.

As far as I'm aware, Pegram was the only person that made a reference to the length of the hair. He was one of a group that viewed the corpse 4 years after death. But he was the only one (to my knowledge) who thought it 'nearly a foot long'.

"nearly a foot long" ? So that's between seven and eleven inches long? Eleven would be quite long, I admit. But seven or eight?

I can recall my father saying (this was in the 1960's) my brother's hair was a disgrace because, he said, it was more than a foot long. In fact it was barely to his shoulders.

In the army, on parade, there's many a private who heard the words screamed in his ear by an inspecting Sergeant standing behind him ... "Am I hurting you, you HORRIBLE little man? I should be, because I'm standing on your hair !!! Get it cut !!!"

[JMadonna]

Booth had naturally curly hair. Must have had a real afro when he died.

[Steve]

(12-29-2018 03:44 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Three, Boyd was 41, which would explain why Dr. May said the body on the Montauk looked "much older" than Booth looked the last time he'd seen him, which was just over a year earlier. When Rollins was shown a picture of Booth less than 48 hours before the barn shooting, he had no problem recognizing the picture as Booth, and the only difference he noted between the picture and how Booth looked when he saw him was that Booth had no mustache when he saw him. Rollins didn't say anything like "and, oh yeah, when I saw him, Booth looked a lot older than he does in the picture."

Mike, do you believe/assert that the "Boyd" killed at Garrett's farm the James W. Boyd of the 6th Tennessee, who was released after taking the oath of allegiance and giving a promise to spy for the Union? If not, where does this "41" age that you assert for "Boyd" come from and who are you claiming he was? Specifically which Confederate soldier(s) named "James Boyd" could've been the person killed at Garrett's Farm, if it wasn't the Boyd of the 6th Tennessee?

If you can't find such a Confederate soldier named James Boyd that could've been killed at Garrett's farm:

(a) Wouldn't that be a strong indication that the person was lying and using an alias, say I dunno… like Booth?

(b) Where does that "41" year age you give "Boyd (which matches the age of James W. Boyd of the 6th Tennessee) come from?



Getting back to Rob's point about proving a point by documented evidence... here is the letter James W. Boyd, of the 6th Tennessee, wrote on February 14, 1865 where he offers to spy for the Union if he can be released as a paroled POW. He says that he wants to spy in order to earn money to help support his 7 children who have been dependent on charity following his wife's death and to get revenge for being court-martialed twice:







The letter comes from the National Archives, Record Group 94, Microfilm M797, Roll 135. From the Baker case files of the Turner-Baker papers, original case file no. 718B.

Most importantly for the purposes of this discussion, he volunteered to spy in western Tennessee and parts of Kentucky west of the Tennessee river. He even uses his knowledge of that area and its people as a selling point on why that would make him a good spy. Boyd was released the next day, so he should've been nowhere near Maryland in April 1865 if he was specifically released to help provide for his now motherless children and spy for the Union in Tennessee.

Here's a newspaper account of James W. Boyd's 01 Jan. 1866 murder from page 2 of the 10 Jan. 1866 edition of the Memphis Daily Avalanche, first published in the West Tennessee Whig of Jackson, Tennessee



Note, this is the year following the death of the man called "Boyd" at Garrett's farm. The article doesn't mention Boyd's 6th Tennessee military service, but fortunately another source does, the diary of a local man named Robert H. Cartmell. In the last paragraph of the first page below continuing onto the top of the second page, Cartmell says the James W. Boyd killed on 01 January 1866 in Tennessee was indeed the James W. Boyd of the 6th Tennessee. That would make it impossible for him to have been the man called "Boyd" who was killed at Garrett's farm the prior year:





Link to the full Robert H. Cartmell diary collection:

http://teva.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/landi...5138coll39

I hope this provides enough documented evidence that the man killed at Garrett's barn could not possibly be the James W. Boyd of the 6th Tennessee (ignoring all the evidence that it was Booth and just focusing on the documentary evidence from Boyd's life). Hopefully, it meets the standard of documentary evidence put forward by Rob to prove an argument and will be a useful instruction on how to craft an historical argument using evidence and logic.

[L Verge]

Bravo, Steve! And thank you for locating and sharing most of the primary source materials that Hall, Tidwell, and Gaddy found in their move to eliminate the James W. Boyd theory. It will be interesting to see what techniques will be used here to discredit original documentary evidence.

[L Verge]

Changing the title of this post from Identification of Booth's Body to Identification of Booth's Knife: I'm happy to see that, after a hiatus of a few months while working for a living and pursuing a Master's degree, Dave Taylor has published a new blurb on BoothieBarn.com concerning the heaps of knives related (or thought to be) to Lincoln's assassination. Check it out.

We also hope that 2019 brings the publication of Wes Harris's book on the Tools of the Assassin.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Yes, great article:
https://boothiebarn.com/2018/12/31/cloak...on-knives/