Identification of Booth's body

[Warren]

A wonderful, well thought out article and research. Thanks for the link, Eva

And for entertainment, read the posts by a poster "Lyndale" at the end of the article.

[RJNorton]

Many thanks to Steve for sending this article. It's from page 5 of section 6 of the 11 Feb. 1912 edition of the Oregonian and is an account of the capture of Booth and Herold given by two of the soldiers, John W. Millington and E. Parady, of the 16th NY Cavalry. Steve cut the image of the article into two halves so it can be posted in a legible form.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Cool - thanks to Steve!

[wpbinzel]

Yes, thanks Steve and Roger for posting!

The reporter certainly took liberties. Most are obvious, so I will take exception with just one that may not be well known: "a bright full moon sped along over the clouds," which is subsequently directly contradicted by "he entered the dim moon light." The latter reference to the phase of the moon is more accurate.

In April 1865, the full moon (100% illumination) was on the night of April 11-12. On the night of April 14-15, Booth and Herold rode with Moon illumination of 86.9%. The new moon (0% illumination) was on the night April 25-26, and the illumination on previous night was 0.5%. So, the 16th NY Cavalry and its leaders were operating in the dark.

Here is a link to phases of the moon in April 1865: https://www.moongiant.com/calendar/April/1865/

[mikegriffith1]

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.

A "clear and definitive identification of the body"??!!! Let us paraphrase this "clear and definitive identification" from the statements by May and Gardner:

"The body looked nothing like Booth. It was very much changed. Never before had a body undergone such a change in appearance from life to death. The man's face was very much freckled, and he looked much older than Booth. The lineaments--distinctive features, mainly of the face--bore no resemblance to Booth. We even took out photos of Booth and compared them to the body, but could no see resemblance. We were all struck by the lack of resemblance. But, nevertheless, eventually we positively identified the body as Booth, and we are certain we are not wrong."

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.

Yes, and that's what's called a severe contradiction. That's what's called an unbelievable statement that would be shredded on cross-examination even by a rookie lawyer.

I guess you're not going to address the fact that the original handwritten transcript of Dr. May's testimony clearly suggests he was stumbling over his words when he claimed that, in spite of the difference in appearance, he was certain the body was Booth?

Any first-year law student could tell you that you can't just take a person's statement at face value when it contains so many obvious contradictions and problematic assertions. You folks cling for dear life onto May's halting statement that, in spite of everything he noted about the differences in appearance, he was certain the body was Booth, and you refuse to address how May could say this with a straight face given the differences he had noted and given his flimsy excuse for finally making the identification (the scar on the back of the neck).

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

In other words, you won't venture to address the scientific problems with the identification because Dr. May, after noting drastic differences in appearance between the body and Booth, finally ended up saying that he was certain the body was Booth.

So if Joe Witness said he was certain that the man he saw crossing the street was John Doe, you would simply accept this summary claim, even if Joe Witness also said that the man he saw crossing the street (1) had freckles, unlike John Doe; (2) looked much older than Joe Doe; (3) had facial features that "bore no resemblance" to Joe Doe; and (4) that when he first saw the man crossing the street, he noted that the man looked nothing like John Doe?

According to what you're saying here, you would. You would accept Joe Witness's final claim and would ignore all the problems and contradictions in his statements leading up to his final claim. Because that's exactly what you're doing with Dr. May's and Gardner's statements.

It is apparent that you cannot explain why Dr. Merrill's statement vanished, why Dr. Merrill was never deposed by Holt that day, why even Dr. Merrill's presence on the boat was withheld/expunged from the official record of the event, why Dr. May and Gardner said the man was heavily freckled, why no photo of the body survives, why Dr. Barnes did not at least insist on taking photos of the alleged tattoo and the neck scar, why the body on the Montauk did not have a single one of the facial or neck-down scars that Booth was known to have, why Luther Baker took off with the body for hours, why Rollins--on April 24--had no problem seeing the resemblance between the photo of Booth that Conger/Baker showed him and the man he'd seen on crutches hours earlier, why the body at the 1869 viewing had only one filling when it should have had two, why the body at the 1869 viewing had visible damage near the knee when no one ever claimed Booth suffered damage near the knee, why the body at the 1869 viewing had hair that was a foot longer than Booth's hair, how a body that was easily recognizable from photos as Booth on April 24 could change its appearance so drastically less than 72 hours later, etc., etc.

[Gene C]

Your misguided and wordy post doesn't change the fact that at the end of Dr. May's and Mr Gardner's articles and interview they both come to the very certain conclusion the body is Booth's.

So far, you are the only one who continues to misrepresent their statements , going as far as to mislead others by ignoring May's and Garner's identifying Booth's body until it was brought up by someone else on the forum.

You should recognize you loose respect and credibility when you continue to do this.

It's OK here to have a difference of opinion, it's not OK to intentionally mislead and misrepresent - case in point the conclusion of May's and Gardner's identification of Booth's body, and your comments on the FBI report on Booth's diary.

[Steve]

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.

Yes, and that's what's called a severe contradiction. That's what's called an unbelievable statement that would be shredded on cross-examination even by a rookie lawyer.

Again, with 41 year old age. Mike, will you please stop ignoring my earlier post/questions?

[JMadonna]

If I were surrounded by soldiers in a barn and ordered to surrender, why would I try to fight it out when I know that I'm not the man they're looking for???

[mikegriffith1]

If I were surrounded by soldiers in a barn and ordered to surrender, why would I try to fight it out when I know that I'm not the man they're looking for???

Sigh. . . . Who said the man tried to fight it out? Who said that? According to Conger, the man had dropped his weapon and was headed toward the door seconds before he was shot. According to Jack Garrett, the man "made no movement to fire upon anybody" (Winkler, Lincoln and Booth: More Light on the Conspiracy, p. 188). We have only the word of the mentally ill and contradictory Boston Corbett that the man raised his weapon to fire.

You might also want to look at the forensic evidence that clearly indicates that Corbett could not have the one who fired the shot. I've discussed this evidence at length in this thread.

[J. Beckert]

If I were surrounded by soldiers in a barn and ordered to surrender, why would I try to fight it out when I know that I'm not the man they're looking for???

Sigh. . . . Who said the man tried to fight it out? Who said that?

The guy in the barn. Booth. He told them to draw their men off and he'd come out and fight them all.

[JMadonna]

All he asked for was a 'sporting chance'. You remember, before they let Herold surrender and set fire to the barn

[L Verge]

Mr. G. - I sense that your responses are getting a little testy and sloppy. It's not fun is it to be up against people who really know their history in depth?

---

Mr. G. - I sense that your responses are getting a little testy and sloppy. It's not fun is it to be up against people who really know their history in depth?

Note to readers: Make sure you are keeping up with the postings on the other two threads of similar nature under Assassination. There are some good comments that might be overlooked if you don't. If there were a way to join all three of these titles under one, it would be easier to keep up with it.

[Rob Wick]

According to Conger, the man had dropped his weapon and was headed toward the door seconds before he was shot.

Read Conger's testimony and see if you can apply the logic you accuse the rest of us of not using. Conger said that Booth had the carbine in his arms, and he used the word "carbine." Conger testified Booth was looking at the fire, trying to see if he could put it out. He couldn't. Conger then said "He dropped his arm, relaxed his muscles, and turned around, and started for the door for the front of the barn." Conger ran to the side of the barn and reported hearing a pistol fire. When he went into the barn he told Byron Baker that Booth shot himself. Conger was adamant that he had, and Baker knew he hadn't.

"Arm" in this case means his physical appendage, not a firearm. Logic would tell us that because Conger first referred to it as a carbine and not an arm, he would have referred to it as a carbine or rifle in further testimony. Conger had served as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Union cavalry and knew the terminology. Second, after dropping his arm, Conger says Booth relaxed his muscles. One would follow the other. Third, Conger was adamant that Booth had shot himself. If he had just witnessed Booth dropping his carbine, why on earth would he ever had argued with Byron Baker that Booth had committed suicide?

Either you don't understand what Conger was saying, or you're purposefully using it incorrectly in order to further proffer this nonsense. One is acceptable even if mistaken. The other is totally unacceptable.

[AussieMick]

Mike , you being a former member of the armed forces, I'd be interested in your reply to Rob's above Post with reference to what Conger meant when he said "arm".

[Rob Wick]

Reading further in the testimony, I came across the following:

Q [Exhibiting a carbine to the witness] Is that the carbine you took there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that what is called a Spencer rifle?
A. A Spencer carbine. It is a cavalry weapon; and it has a mark on the breech by which I know it.
Q. Were these weapons loaded?
A. The carbine was loaded at the time, and the pistols were loaded. In Mr. Secretary Stanton's office, I unloaded the carbine myself.

So, not only did Conger constantly refer to it as a "carbine" he corrected the attorney who called it a Spencer rifle. In no way can one come to the conclusion that he would have referred to the carbine as an "arm."