A second example involves the controversy over one of the trial exhibits. "Exhibit No. 1," a photograph identified as John Wilkes Booth. The photograph currently found among the trial exhibits located in the National Archives and marked "Exhibit No. 1" is a photograph of Edwin Booth, John Wilkes Booth's brother. This finding has led those who advocate a government conspiracy aimed at framing innocent people to suggest that the government conspiracy aimed at framing innocent people to suggest that the government deliberately used the wrong photograph to mislead certain witnesses.And yet, a careful reading of the summation reproduced in Pitman by Samuel Mudd's own defense attorney, Thomas Ewing, proves that the photograph introduced as "Exhibit No. 1" was a photograph of John Wilkes Booth and not his brother." Thus the closing argument of Ewing, found only in the Pitman version, is vital to understanding the true nature of Exhibit No. 1, the photograph of John Wilkes Booth.
Of course, Steers does not identify anything said by Thomas Ewing, Jr. which would support his inane assertion.
As argument by counsel, nothing Ewing said is considered evidence. It would not prove anything. I can find nothing said by Ewing which could remotely support the claim of Steers.
Further, I cannot imagine anything Ewing could have said to prove that the photograph marked as Exhibit No. 1 was a photograph of John Wilkes Booth. It is indisputable that the photograph on file as evidence, marked as Exhibit No. 1, in the official trial record, is a photograph of Edwin Booth and not John Wilkes Booth. You are invited to believe Edward Steers or your own lying eyes.
The trial testimony (actual evidence) is far more illuminating than The putrescent blather of Edward Steers, Jr.
Henry Von Steinacker
Q. Look at that photograph.
A. There is a resemblance; but the face was fuller.
Q. You think it is the same person, but he had a fuller face than this?
A. I believe it is.
Poore, Conspiracy Trial, Vol. I, p. 21
Henry Von Steinaker
[A photograph of John Wilkes Booth being shown to the witness, he identified a resemblance between it and the person referred to. The photograph was offered in evidence.]
Pitman, page 38
Col. H.H. Wells
I exhibited to him a photograph of Booth, but he said he [Mudd] could not recognize him from that photograph.
Pitman, p. 169.
Col H.H. Wells
I then exhibited what was said to be a photograph of Booth; and he said, that, from the photograph, he could not recognize him.
Poore, Vol I, p. 284
Look at that curious difference between the Pitman and Poore transcript. Why I do declare, Col. Wells' testimony would not be perjury even if he knew the photograph was not of John Wilkes Booth, but of Edwin Booth, or even a little green man from Mars.
Now look at the closing argument of prosecutor John A. Bingham.
Pitman, page 400. He [Mudd] further stated to this witness that he returned to his own house about four o'clock in the afternoon; that he did not know this wounded man/ said he could not recognize him from the photograph which is of record here, but admitted that he had met booth some time in November, when he had some conversation with him about lands and horses; that booth had remained with him that night in November, and on the next day had purchased a horse.
Look at that curious phrasing: "from the photograph which is of record here." I do declare that Mr. Bingham made a truthful argument, even if the picture was that of Edwin Booth. Why, even if Bingham knew for a fact that Exhibit No. 1 was a picture of Edwin Booth, he did not misrepresent it.
A note on Poore and Pitman.
Boston newspaper journalist Ben Perley Poore published the second version. Using the transcripts published daily in the Intelligencer; Poore published the entire transcript in three volumes containing 1,584 pages. Poore released two volumes immediately but didn't publish the third until 1866....Pitman, the originator of the trial transcript, was the last to publish. Hes version was an abridged, 421-page hardback edition released in November of 1865....
The three versions differ in several ways. The first two, by Petersen and Poore, were copied from the daily newspaper accounts and lack editing of any sort. ... Pitman carefully edited the 4,900-plus pages of hand-transcribed testimonyh and collated it by defendant and indexed the arranged testimony by name, date, and whether the witness was a prosecution or defense witness, then gave a one-line summary of the subject of the testimony....
Pitman, more often than not, merges the witnesses' responses to multiple questions by the prosecutors and defense attorneys, summarizing them into a single response.
The Trial, edited by Edward Steers, Jr., 2003, introduction by Edward Steers, Jr., at page XIV-XV
And let's look at the Exhibit List:
Exhibit No. 1 is listed as "Booth's portrait."
Why, I do declare, that is legally accurate whether the portrait is one of John Wilkes Booth, Edwin Booth, Junius Brutus Booth, or Shirley Booth.