** NEW DISCOVERY REGARDING BOOTH AUTOPSY PHOTO

[wsanto]

(06-28-2013 04:39 PM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  I went to that section and found the info that Katz gave on James Wardell and the missing Booth photo. In a nutshell: James A. Wardell lived in Alexandria, Virginia, and was a government detective with the War Department from 1862-1869. He later became a policeman in Virginia. His letter's high points say that he had been on patrol in Southern Maryland until 7 pm on April 26 and reported to the National Detective Bureau at 6 am the next morning. He was told to wait for a Patrolman Camp, who came shortly with Gardner and a darky to photograph Booth's body. An assistant (whom Katz thought was Timothy O'Sullivan) was waiting in the buggy. The party went to the Navy Yard.

They were refused entrance there because no one had issued a pass. About 10:30 am, Lafayette Baker showed up in a coach and they followed him to the pier and out to the ironclad. Barnes was already aboard the ship and instructed Gardner to produce only one photograph and to give it only to Baker or Stanton. Wardell claims that the assistant did the work and also claims to have gone to the dark room with the assistant. No mention is made of where the dark room was on the ship.

Wardell further claims that the photo was not delivered to him until 4:00 pm. Doesn't that seem like a long time to wait? Wardell took it to the War Department and gave it to Baker, who looked at it, and Wardell left. He says he appeared before the Commission, but they seemed to doubt him. Stanton denied that a photo had ever been taken. Wardell says he glanced at the photo and thought it looked like Booth.

Now comes something that waves a red flag at me: The chapter note for this letter says that Mark Katz got the TRANSCRIPT of Wardell's letter from Lloyd Ostendorf.

If that's all fiction, it is a pretty elaborate ruse. It makes no sense to me for Katz to create it. What is his theory as to why an autospy photo is of such import to go to all this trouble to create evidence for it. I doubt it helped sell anymore books.

[SSlater]

Linda - a personal THANKS, for your find. Did you notice that there was no money in the Budget for a "Detective"? I will go back to my source and read it more carefully. I now realize that New Haven is a Town as well as a County. Finding that Wardell is not from New Haven, the Town, is progress in itself. Thanks to Laurie too. We have learned more about Wardell in the last two days, than we did in the last 100 years. I am convinced HE DID LIVE.

[Hess1865]

I lived in New Haven COUNTY for 57 years

[John E.]

(06-28-2013 09:25 PM)wsanto Wrote:  If that's all fiction, it is a pretty elaborate ruse. It makes no sense to me for Katz to create it. What is his theory as to why an autospy photo is of such import to go to all this trouble to create evidence for it. I doubt it helped sell anymore books. In this scenario, he gets to have his cake and eat it too.

Just to be clear, I don't believe Katz made up the story himself but he used it in his book without doing the legwork to make sure it was legit. He was careful to say that "Oldroyd was convinced the story was true" or something to that effect.

Osborn Oldroyd was deceased and unable to counter the claim. However, he wrote his own book in 1901 on the Lincoln assassination (8 years after supposedly receiving the letter) and never included the Wardell story. Why is that? If true, it was certainly an important piece of evidence.

By the way, you are correct, its a very elaborate story, but it contains about 4 red flags that don't pop up unless you spend some time digging around what's known to be true. If you want someone to believe your story, you certainly want to make it detailed. But, you better get your details straight.

[Gene C]

Would an editor cut that out of a manuscript if he didn't think it added to a story, or didn't see it as significant, or thought a section was not well written?

[John E.]

(06-29-2013 09:12 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Would an editor cut that out of a manuscript if he didn't think it added to a story, or didn't see it as significant, or thought a section was not well written?

I imagine that's what an editor is responsible for but I think Oldroyd was his own editor. He was an avid collector and researcher who once served in the Union army during the Civil War.

Here's the book: http://archive.org/stream/assassinatio33...5/mode/2up

[L Verge]

As John said, I don't think that Katz created the letter. I also question why Oldroyd (or an editor) would leave it out of his book. My radar went up when I saw Lloyd Ostendorf 's name listed as the source of the letter's TRANSCRIPT. When John then posted that Kauffman had been offered such a transcript from Ray Neff's heirs, my radar bleeped again. There are also questionable things in the text, but it's John's property to disclose when he chooses.

[wsanto]

I guess my main concern is why anyone, Katz or Osborn Oldroyd or whoever would create this fiction. The premise is that the Wardell letter was fabricated solely to create or perpetuate the hoax or theory that a picture of the autoupsy was taken by Gardiner.

Certainly Oldroyd was a collector and an early expert on the assassination. He probably wanted the photogragh for his collection if it existed. It is my understanding, and I may be wrong, that he is the one that, reportedly, had direct contact with Wardell with regard to the story and that the letter was a product of that relationship. I may be wrong because I don't fully understand the backstory.

As far as his book is concerned it is entirely conceivable to me that his interest in the photo was more as a collector than as an author and didn't feel the story warranted inclusion in his book

Perhaps he or someone using his name and reputation had a motive--to implicate Stanton in a cover-up. I just don't know this story well enough to understand what may have motivated him or them.

[John E.]

(06-29-2013 08:43 PM)wsanto Wrote:  I guess my main concern is why anyone, Katz or Osborn Oldroyd or whoever would create this fiction. The premise is that the Wardell letter was fabricated solely to create or perpetuate the hoax or theory that a picture of the autoupsy was taken by Gardiner.

Sadly, this may help you understand the "why" behind forgeries and fame: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...rgery.html

[barryssentials]

Hi all: Barry here. What a great discussion this has created. There are so many things I want to address but let me start with what I do best - OBSERVATIONS. But so as not to hide my feelings about Mark Katz book (not Mark Katz as I never knew him) I have serious concerns about parts of his book that I can historically address myself. There are many identifiable or questionable statements that are just flat out incorrect. Some could be simple mistakes or based on the history that is now outdated (we all know how fast things change). Those I can easily forgive. Our own work gets outdated all the time. But what bothers me more are several 'fabrications' that the facts just do not support. It weakens the entire book (which for the most part, may be very valid research). But because of some of these painfully obvious fabrications, it makes me doubt every word I read in his book. The same thing happened with Osborne Oldroyd's book when I discovered that he had changed the wording in a letter he received from Christian Rath regarding his involvement in the execution. As many of you know, by changing that one sentence to support his theory, it changed our view of that historical event for over 100 years until the error was identified. So for me, when the trust is gone, it is very hard to get it back. I will always view the content in both Katz and Oldroyd books with a grain of salt...but at the same time, still tell you there is some fascinating stuff in both of them.

BASIC OBSERVATIONS FROM KATZ BOOK.
1. As Linda pointed out, the Wirz execution photos are footnoted in the back of the book with his own interesting observations. Katz mentions the conspirator executions as well and states on page 292: "At the conspirators' execution Gardner used two cameras, as discussed in the text: one large format camera and one stereoview camera. A study of the photographs makes clear that once these cameras were in position, neither was moved. There was only one camera used at the Wirz hanging. All of Gardner's photographs were taken from the same point, and all, including the postmortem view, were made with an 8 x 10 camera".
Regrettably, Katz is mistaken in both of his statements. At first glance, the Conspirator execution photos taken with the two cameras seem to support Katz's observation. But at least two major camera angle changes can be seen by the full format camera, the first in All is Done (1), the first photo showing the bodies resting after the drop. Gardner swung his full format camera to the left to take in the media scrum that occurred just to the north side of the scaffold. Much more of the penitentiary is visible in this shot. Next, he swung the same camera to the far right to take the photo of the Pine Boxes.
The Wirz execution photos (x4) are even more dramatic in change in angle. If you have the book, the upper right-hand photo is the first in the series and shows a soldier testing the rope. The Capitol Building dome is visible in the background. Gardner then changed his position by moving his camera location further to the right when he took the next two photos found on the left hand page. Finally, after Wirz has been hanged, he moved back to the right and higher up this time and took his last photo, again showing the Capitol Bldg dome in the background. You can tell he moved higher up by comparing the location of the crossbeam against the backgrounds in the various photos.
I know these are nitpicky observations, but it allows you to see for yourself what is, and isn't fact.

2. A much more troubling conflict can be found on page 178 of Katz's book. It relates to the Rooftop or Courtyard View and the photo taken of General Hartranft and his staff. Katz showed his 'creative writing skills' when he described the arrival of Gardner and O'Sullivan at the penitentiary and what immediately followed. Like Oldroyd, he inserted his own 'facts' to make his theories work. Katz describes expertly how Gardner and O'Sullivan set up their cameras, explaining who operated each one and in which windows they were positioned (by the way, Katz got this wrong too [he has the camera positions reversed] as can be verified by looking at the angles taken from the execution photos). But more disturbing is the very wild story he tells about Gardner sending O'Sullivan up to the corner building [Model Arsenal building] to take an overall view of the scaffold and courtyard. He claimed this was taken as the first photo in the series and showed the soldiers were testing the traps. As we all have seen by observation, this photo was actually the last shot taken out of the ten images from that day and shows the the bodies already hanged and suspended from the ropes. Even if one could forgive Katz for making an observational mistake, he still continued his story with even more flare and fiction. Katz goes on to say that upon O'Sullivan's return from taking this rooftop shot, he stopped and persuaded General Hartranft and his entire senior staff to pose for their group photo beside the scaffold. Ignoring the photographic fact that none of this occurred 'before the hangings', Katz continues with his fantastical story by saying O'Sullivan convinced the general and his men to stop everything they were doing to take this photo with less than 1-1/2 hours before the executions. It seems he was trying to prove that the chairs the men are shown photographed sitting on were later used on the scaffold. The entire paragraph is a total fabrication. Nonsense! The bottom line for me is that Katz proved he can write very creatively when it suits his purposes (as shown here). Could he have been the author of the Wardell letter? It's a very plausible theory...but with no hard proof. The Wardell letter is extremely well-crafted and without a doubt, seems true. Finding flaws in it have been difficult and everyone here has done a great job trying to pick it apart. John and I have done the same. Some arguments are much stronger than others. But for me, Katz has been caught in at least one major fabrication and his observations are somewhat shoddy. I personally can't trust anything written in his book after this. And although I just don't know whether or not it was he who authored the Wardell letter, it did appear in only his book. To my knowledge it has never appeared or been written about in any publication prior to his book. I believe the letter is a well written-hoax. Who the author was and when it was written are still a mystery. Sorry to go on so long but I just wanted to touch base on this one. Best. Barry

[barryssentials]

Hi Laurie: You did a great job in summarizing the Wardell letter.
It does have several things in it that are certainly questionable but still hard to prove (maybe John Fazio can comment on some of these coming from a 'legal' point of view. What is truth, what is conjecture and what is assumption. That is why this is such a fascinating letter. There are not that many parts of the letter that allow you to challenge what is said with 'hard evidence' to the contrary. In my opinion, the one point that is most likely able to be challenged is the one concerning Wardell's claim that he appeared before the Commission.

I am not a trial specialist, but as far as I know the conspirator trial was meticulously documented (ie. Poore, Pittman, etc). Newspaper coverage was daily. From what I have been told by people who know the trial well, no such appearance by anyone named Wardell appears in the Military Commission transcripts nor is there any mention of a Booth autopsy photo. For those of you who know the trial transcripts best, can you confirm this?
The supplement that John and I are preparing right now will include several observations found within the Wardell letter to challenge it's authenticity. Admittedly, some are based on our opinions in lieu of hard facts (logical assumptions) while others are stronger arguments.

In summary, John and I believe that the Lawrence Gardner interview puts a very strong case forward to prove that the Booth autopsy photo was never taken. It also challenges the validity of the Wardell letter and Timothy O'Sullivan's involvement in the Montauk photo shoots (we also do not believe he was present at the conspirator executions for differing reasons to be covered at a later date). The only place where I differ slightly from John's viewpoint in all of this is that I think the L. Gardner/Wardell conflict still feels like a "he said/she said" scenario. We both agree that the Gardner interview carries a lot more clout than the Wardell letter for reasons previously stated. My only hesitation is that so little of the Wardell letter can truly be challenged with hard facts. I need to see it completely debunked to put my mind at ease. Until then, it will nag at me. That is why I think this is going to continue to create great debate until resolved. Gardner vs. Wardell...one of these two sources are phony (at least in part), so let the games begin. Barry

[L Verge]

I had mentioned in my previous post that there were certain points in the Wardell letter that I would question but was deferring to John for y'all's publication. What you just posted about Wardell appearing before the Commission is one of those points. I have never seen Wardell's name mentioned in anything except related to this letter. Our research librarian at Surratt House has been checking files, and she told me yesterday that she can only tie Wardell to references about Lloyd Ostendorf.

[barryssentials]

Hi Laurie: I came across a James I. Waddell in the 1960 Lafayette Baker book "Death to Traitors" by Jacob Mogelever. He was a Confederate boat captain that Baker had run-ins with. Interestingly enough, his memoirs were also published in 1960 called "C.S.S. Shenandoah: The Memoirs of Lieutenant Commanding James I. Waddell". It's a long shot but you just never know where someone might have taken a name from and made it into their own character.
One day someone will find the answer.

Barry

[L Verge]

Is Waddell the correct spelling or Wardell? I met Jacob Mogelever one time courtesy of James O. Hall and still like his book. I wonder what happened to his papers? Also, Andrew Jampoler, author of The Last Lincoln Conspirator, is a friend; and he writes extensively on naval themes. I'm going to run Waddell's name past him to see if we can make any ties to a Wardell also.

[John E.]

(07-07-2013 11:55 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Is Waddell the correct spelling or Wardell? I met Jacob Mogelever one time courtesy of James O. Hall and still like his book. I wonder what happened to his papers? Also, Andrew Jampoler, author of The Last Lincoln Conspirator, is a friend; and he writes extensively on naval themes. I'm going to run Waddell's name past him to see if we can make any ties to a Wardell also.

James I. Waddell is the correct spelling from the book. Its not quite exact but Barry suspects that perhaps someone used it as inspiration for the name James A. Wardell.