(05-25-2016 07:21 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  There are any number of reasons why Scott could have been bringing Olivia newspapers. Maybe Olivia just liked newspapers; many young women at the time followed current events, as you'll see if you read letters and diaries from the period. Maybe a friend or relative was mentioned in them; maybe Olivia kept a scrapbook of newspaper clippings about the war and wanted certain papers; maybe Scott was passing a love note to Olivia under the guise of bringing her newspapers. As Laurie said, 9:00 at night wasn't a shockingly late hour to call in the city, especially simply to deliver something, and Washington had been particularly bustling since the fall of Richmond and the attendant celebrations.

The defense lawyers weren't prevented from asking who came to the house at nine. For that matter, neither was the government. Nora Fitzpatrick, for instance, testified for both sides at the conspiracy trial, but neither side chose to question her about this. Perhaps Weichmann's testimony that he didn't know the identity of the caller made the government assume that none of the ladies present in the house on the evening of April 14 would know either.

(05-26-2016 07:05 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Laurie, it will come as no surprise to you that I disagree with most of what you said, and thanks to you I had to reread Joseph George's paper. Where to start. I'm sure he was a great guy but he had a prejudice and a narrative that he looked to support in his research and writing. When he had the opportunity to make an interpretation of some part of Weichmann's life or something he said or did, he always followed his narrative, that Weichmann threw Mary to the wolves to save his own skin. There are way to many instances to get into, so I'll mention a few. "His testimony helped condemn her, but saved him from prosecution." "....Weichmann later recanted his testimony which had proved so damaging to Mrs. Surratt."
George got into the incident that came up in John's trial where Weichmann admitted looking into the barrell of a gun and reciting Hamlet and Weichmann said he wasn't interested in suicide because, "I am too much of a coward for that." Apparently George never read "To Be or Not to Be" where Hamlet said, "Thus conscience does make cowards of us all." BTW, I recommend reading Hamlet soliloquy, it's beautiful and I never realized it was about the pros and cons of suicide. And here it is!

To Be Or Not To Be’: Original Words Spoken by Hamlet, Act 3 Scene 1

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there’s the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law’s delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover’d country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.–Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember’d.

George interpreted a guilty conscience, mine is PTSD.

"As to his brother, there is evidence that Frederick C. Weichmann was a disciplinary problem." Really? What were the problems? Many of the Catholic Seminaries were pro Confederacy; John Surratt's sponsor was known as the "Rebel Bishop" and had spent years in Baltimore before being sent to Florida. Louis decribed the Southern bias in his seminary to Charles Alfred Townsend.

"(Weichmann) had placed his life above his conscience" He was never able to live down...his failure to save his landlady." George's bias and narrative is clear.

You said, " while others of us detect a more uneasy tone (for lack of a better term) in his writings that we have a hard time getting past.--What does that mean?

I don't agree that I claw but I will continue to push back on your narrative, and that of others like Susan's, "Weichmann,...consumed with guilt".

(05-27-2016 03:56 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  The "use" of claws, cats in closets or other verbal weapons doesn't make any difference about that, but it stresses and saddens immensely to read - me at least.

(05-27-2016 03:56 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Please allow me to say my opinion - whatever the "truth" is, Weichmann took it to his grave. Hence there's no true victory to win or cause to lose.

With malice toward none, with charity for all...points of view - shouldn't we be capable to disagree while tolerating that others believe and perceive differently what will never be provable? This is not a battlefield but a place to learn of others' opinions, discuss these and our own, agree or disagree - peacefully and respectfully.