(07-02-2016 09:48 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 11:20 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Richards described those events because of what he had read in chapter 15 of Weichmann's book, and said that Stewart's account of events and testimony were largely imagined and not accurate.

I also wonder about the validity of Richards' account. Personally I do not know of any contemporary evidence that he was present at Ford's Theatre when the President was shot (other than Richards' own word that he was).

Richards says he was there, but was he?

According to Good's book, Richards' "revelation" that he was there came on April 17, 1885, which is 20 years after the event. Captain Reed, who could have verified Richards' presence, is deceased. So is Stewart dead by this time. Richards also says in his account that Peanut John was a black boy. In other discussions we've had, it seems the evidence is quite conclusive that Peanut John was white. Richards claims Mary Lincoln yelled "guerillas" after the shot; as far as I know, no one else made this claim. Richards said he thought Booth yelled "Sic semper tyrannis" twice while on the stage; I think the vast majority of other accounts have Booth yelling this once.

If anyone can provide contemporary evidence that Richards really was in the theater when Lincoln was shot then I will stand corrected in my suspicions.

(07-02-2016 10:55 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Why do you use the word revelation in quotes?

(11-25-2013 02:05 PM)L Verge Wrote:  The Superintendent of Police at the time was A.C. Richards, who had been in his job less than six months. He later claimed that he had been in Ford's Theatre at the time of the assassination and had gone after Booth. Most historians think that is a fabrication.

(07-03-2016 10:44 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Found this online in a screed referring to a case of classical contract law - Shuey vs. U.S. - authored by Joseph M. Perillo.
ir./lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article+3870&content

Notice footnote #19 in which Richards supposedly corrected Weichmann's manuscript on the trip to the alley, BUT Weichmann did not make the changes. Why?

Two men from Ford's Theatre go out in pursuit of Booth-Jacob
Ritterspaugh, a carpenter who worked for the theatre, and Joseph B.
Stewart, a member of the audience. Booth is on horseback and
Stewart runs after the horse and rider, but the horse is too swift.' 9
When Ritterspaugh returns to the theatre, Spangler slaps him and says
"Don't say which way he went." Ritterspaugh asks him what he
meant by slapping him. Spangler answers, "For God's sake, shut
up."2

"1 Spangler appears to have been crying. Spangler will be
15. See Roscoe, supra note 11, at 99-100.
16. Official Statement of Major H.R. Rathbone, National Archives, War Dept.
Records, File "R," R.B., JAO, at 74, reprinted in Roscoe, supra note 11, at 536-38.
17. This is the conventional account and an American legend. E.g., Weichmann,
supra note 13, at 152. Booth, apparently contradicting press accounts, wrote in his
diary "I shouted 'Sic semper' before I fired." Id. at 209.
18. Weichmann, supra note 13, at 153.
19. That, at least, is Stewart's testimony, accepted by Weichmann in his narrative.
See Weichmann, supra note 13, at 154-55. A.C. Richards, who was Superintendent of
the Washington Metropolitan Police at the time of the assassination, reviewed a draft
of Weichmann's narrative and cast doubt on Stewart's story. Richards, in a letter to
Weichmann, described Stewart as a shady lawyer and alleged that Stewart's story was
"apocryphal and imaginary." The letter, dated June 10, 1898, is appended by Risvold,
the editor of the volume, to Weichmann's narrative. Id. at 417. The quoted language
appears on page 418. According to Richards, Stewart and Richards went out of the
Theatre together; Booth and the horse were already out of sight. Weichmann did not
change the manuscript to reflect Richards' comments

(07-03-2016 09:24 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I cannot recall any book (other than Gary Planck's) that gives any real space to A.C. Richards at all. I am sure that I will get shot down for "hearsay," but I have been fortunate enough to have some great conversations with some great historians, and some passing attention to Richards and his veracity in later years has been a brief topic. Among those have been Hall, Kauffman, Hanchett, and I believe Brennan and Betty O.

About ten years ago, I did have email discussions with the then-historian of the Metropolitan Police Department, Nicholas Bruel, who was having a difficult time putting any meat on the bio bones of Richards - despite the fact that he was the Department's first superintendent. He was delighted to find out about (and to receive a Xerox of the Planck booklet) from me. However, Almarin Cooley Richards did not pass muster with any of the historians that I know as far as playing any significant role in identifying the events surrounding the Lincoln assassination. I did call Gary Planck at that time, and he didn't even know if he had any copies of his booklet in storage. His interest in A.C. Richards came and went mainly because he was in Florida and Richards had been also, in his retirement years.

BTW: Richards had virtually no training in police work from what I have read. He was trained as a teacher and was a very dedicated one - even founding some school - until the Civil War came along. I don't remember how he got an appointment as superintendent of the brand-new department; he must have known some politicians...

Also, Pamela, wasn't he the one that got fussed at by the War Department because he sent Weichmann and Holahan to Canada to search for John Surratt very shortly after the crime? They were amazed that a policeman would send two gentlemen, both very closely tied to those knowingly involved in the assassination and living under the same roof with them, out of the country. What guarantee did Richards have that they would return?

I do not see how anyone familiar with the circumstances could believe a man who made no statement that made it into the records in 1865, but twenty years later comes up with a story where nearly every detail is incorrect. Do I think that Richards was such a noodle head (your words, Pamela) in 1885 that he didn't know what really happened? I would not use the derogatory term of "noodle head," but I do believe that Mr. Richards may well have been suffering from a neurological disease that caused him to lose his concept of reality.

The Lincoln assassination story brings out many examples of "guilt by association." In this case, be careful not to let your interest in Louis Weichmann cause "innocence by association" in viewing the role of Richards. Because the two corresponded does not mean Richards's 1885 concoction is correct.

(07-05-2016 01:47 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Very amusing, Gene. Thanks for that, although he left out the phrase in question. Somewhere I read, and I can't remember where, that A.C. Richards was a volunteer escort who rode along side Lincoln's carriage for some event, and I also can't remember which event it was. Lincoln remembered him from that occasion when he chose his appointment for Major and Superintendent of the Metropolitan Police. I don't know if cronyism was also involved. It doesn't seem to be the case.

(07-03-2016 07:37 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  In the same 1885 interview (in the April 17, 1885 Washington Critic) in which Richards claimed to have been at the theater, he also claimed to have gone to Mary Surratt's house on the evening of the assassination and found her in her usual dress, with no appearance of having retired for the evening. I simply don't believe that Richards would have suppressed such incriminating evidence in 1865 had it been true.

It's also noteworthy that in the 1885 account, Richards has the stage empty when Lincoln is shot, and also has Grant at the theater, as he claims that, "In a few seconds word went round that General Grant had been shot. Then we had it that President Lincoln had been shot."

I think Richards was suffering from "rubber room" syndrome.