** NEW DISCOVERY REGARDING BOOTH AUTOPSY PHOTO

[Gene C]

My eye sight is not what it used to be. When was the neck vertebrae removed from Booth's body? This autopsy, or later before they buried him in Baltimore?

[L Verge]

Good question, but I believe it was taken when the body was exhumed in 1869. The autopsy report is so minimal compared to our standards today that you don't even get a sense that the body was touched - just visually checked.

[John E.]

There is another book out there on Gardner besides the one that Katz did. I think the title is something like Gardner's Sketchbook of the Civil War. Has anyone seen it? Is there any mention in there about the supposed autopsy photo?

Hi Laurie,

No mention at all. In fact, it doesn't even include the execution photos.

---

My eye sight is not what it used to be. When was the neck vertebrae removed from Booth's body? This autopsy, or later before they buried him in Baltimore?

It was taken during the autopsy.

[L Verge]

So they really did cut into the corpse during the autopsy. I never knew that.

[John E.]

So they really did cut into the corpse during the autopsy. I never knew that.

Yes. I spoke to Dr. Houmes about what the procedure may have looked like to others. As you know, some spectators mentioned that it looked like they were taking his head off.

I'm sorry to get graphic here, but the site of them using a cutting instrument to open up the neck and remove the vertebrate may have led some to believe the Booth's corpse was getting beheaded.

If his head was not completely detached, it would have been clinging to tissue.

[John E.]

Hi folks, Barry and I wanted to share the cover our newest supplement with you. We are in the final stages of putting it all together and hope to have it in print within the next 2 weeks. We hope you like it and look forward to sharing it with you all in the coming days.

The supplement will be available to purchase from us directly or possibly through the Surratt House Museum. We will provide details when they are available.

[Rhatkinson]

John, where can I purchase your book?

Heath

[L Verge]

And please send me details on how Surratt House can get them for the gift shop.

[J. Beckert]

I like the graphics on your cover. I'd never noticed it before, as I've never seen the engraving so large, but Booth's head does indeed look black as compared to those sketched at the scene.

[Hess1865]

Can't wait for this latest supplement!!!

[RJNorton]

Can't wait for this latest supplement!!!

I agree! This looks terrific, John and Barry. Kudos on all your research.

[BettyO]

Can't wait for this one, guys! The cover is fantastic - beautiful, enticing work as always. Ya'll are the best!

[stevewoolf]

The Harper's woodcut is almost certainly based on eyewitness accounts and not a photograph. For one thing, Alex Gardner himself is depicted at the head of the autopsy table. That would indicate that someone other than Gardner himself took the purported photograph. It seems highly unlikely to me that an assistant would have this responsibility while Gardner posed with the others. Further, in Gardner's Wirz autopsy photo, the pathologist has deliberately turned Wirz's head toward the camera so that Gardner could photograph the face. Surely, this would have been the case for the Booth autopsy photo as well, yet Harper's depicts Booth in profile. Also, if Secretary Stanton recieved the only, closely guarded negative and print, would he then have supplied Harper's Weekly with a working copy? Doubtful. And lastly, Lawrence Gardner was pretty clear about it, answering the question "Did we take a picture? No."

[Gene C]

According to "Lincoln's Assassins" by James Swanson, page 24 (copyright 2001), speaking of Gardner,

"In April the War Department had allowed him to come aboard the ironclads and photograph the conspirators soon after their arrest. The War Department had also summoned him for secret work - to make the only photographs of the corpse of John Wilkes Booth after the assassin's body was brought back from the Garrett farm in Virginia ." (no footnotes or source stated)

Has John and Berry's supplement been published yet, or combined into a book ?

[BettyO]

Gene -

The supplement has been published - please contact John Elliott for info on getting a copy. Surratt House also carries it, I believe....Laurie?

Personally, regarding a statement, I'm suspicious if something is not documented in someway or other - or at least the author should explain within the text why he came to that particular conclusion - especially without backup documentation cited.