Mudds aim to clear name of doc who treated Lincoln killer

[RJNorton]

Credit to Richard Sloan for this link:

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/lo.../30274731/

[MaddieM]

(07-17-2015 11:38 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Credit to Richard Sloan for this link:

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/lo.../30274731/

I read that. Do you suppose he was innocent?

[Jim Page]

You can yell at the top of your lungs for 150 years that black is white, but, at the end of the day, black ain't white.

Just my opinion, worth just what you paid for it: Zip.

--Jim

[Jim Garrett]

I have to say that talking with Tom and Mary, they have some very valid points that help point to some aspects that don't fit in with the extent of guilt that has been assigned to the good doctor.

It would be interesting to hold a moot court today.

[Thomas Kearney]

(07-17-2015 11:38 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Credit to Richard Sloan for this link:

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/lo.../30274731/

Thanks for sharing, Roger.

[L Verge]

Booth comes to Southern Maryland with letters of introduction from Canadian exiles. Those letters direct him to Dr. William Queen and Dr. Samuel Mudd. Dr. Queen gets word to Dr. Mudd to come to a Catholic church outside of his own parish (frowned upon in those days) to meet with Booth - supposedly under the guise of Booth looking to buy land and maybe a horse (the latter of which Dr. Mudd does acquire for him). Otherwise, Dr. Mudd claims that his land is all they discussed. And yet, Dr. Mudd did not own his farm - his father still owned it.

Dr. Queen is elderly and dies shortly before the assassination, but in the fall of 1864, Queen had at least a son-in-law who could have squired Booth around the neighborhood in developing plans; but it is Mudd who introduces Booth to Thomas Harbin and also to John Surratt, Jr., and from there the Southern Maryland role in at least the kidnapping begins to grow. If that doesn't indicate involvement, at least in the beginning....

We can fast forward to the well-known history of what occurred with Dr. Mudd and his rendering assistance to Booth and Herold for over twelve hours, his reluctance to notify authorities, etc. I do not think that Mudd knew of the assassination until the fugitives arrived at his door, but the evidence leading up to that point makes him at least liable for conspiracy.

I have known members of the Mudd families my entire life and have been friends with those who have fought the good fight. They know my feelings and that my greatest argument is that they try too hard to disavow their Southern Maryland heritage of the Civil War when Dr. Mudd's feelings are well covered in his letters to his wife and his rantings to the Catholic journalist Orestes Browning. I do applaud their tenacity, however.

---

BTW: Gen. Tidwell and Mr. Hall thought they had found evidence of a third doctor in Southern Maryland with whom Booth could make contact -- a Dr. Garland. There was a Dr. Garland in St. Mary's County (again Southern Maryland), but from what we could find, he might have been the Dr. Garland that went to Richmond and served Jefferson Davis as a doctor during the war. We were never able to make the connection however.

[LincolnMan]

(07-19-2015 03:08 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Booth comes to Southern Maryland with letters of introduction from Canadian exiles. Those letters direct him to Dr. William Queen and Dr. Samuel Mudd. Dr. Queen gets word to Dr. Mudd to come to a Catholic church outside of his own parish (frowned upon in those days) to meet with Booth - supposedly under the guise of Booth looking to buy land and maybe a horse (the latter of which Dr. Mudd does acquire for him). Otherwise, Dr. Mudd claims that his land is all they discussed. And yet, Dr. Mudd did not own his farm - his father still owned it.

Dr. Queen is elderly and dies shortly before the assassination, but in the fall of 1864, Queen had at least a son-in-law who could have squired Booth around the neighborhood in developing plans; but it is Mudd who introduces Booth to Thomas Harbin and also to John Surratt, Jr., and from there the Southern Maryland role in at least the kidnapping begins to grow. If that doesn't indicate involvement, at least in the beginning....

We can fast forward to the well-known history of what occurred with Dr. Mudd and his rendering assistance to Booth and Herold for over twelve hours, his reluctance to notify authorities, etc. I do not think that Mudd knew of the assassination until the fugitives arrived at his door, but the evidence leading up to that point makes him at least liable for conspiracy.

I have known members of the Mudd families my entire life and have been friends with those who have fought the good fight. They know my feelings and that my greatest argument is that they try too hard to disavow their Southern Maryland heritage of the Civil War when Dr. Mudd's feelings are well covered in his letters to his wife and his rantings to the Catholic journalist Orestes Browning. I do applaud their tenacity, however.

---

BTW: Gen. Tidwell and Mr. Hall thought they had found evidence of a third doctor in Southern Maryland with whom Booth could make contact -- a Dr. Garland. There was a Dr. Garland in St. Mary's County (again Southern Maryland), but from what we could find, he might have been the Dr. Garland that went to Richmond and served Jefferson Davis as a doctor during the war. We were never able to make the connection however.

Good summary Laurie. I don't believe he knew of the assassination either. I was his actions afterward that greatly led to his conviction.

[Gene C]

(07-19-2015 12:22 AM)Jim Garrett Wrote:  I have to say that talking with Tom and Mary, they have some very valid points that help point to some aspects that don't fit in with the extent of guilt that has been assigned to the good doctor.

It would be interesting to hold a moot court today.

A few years ago I purchased a book "Dr. Mudd and the Lincoln Assassination The Case Reopened", edited by John Paul Jones. It's one of the few books I never could get past the first chapter, so I never read it. It was one of the driest books I never read.

A bit to full of technical legal jargon for my taste, for example on page 17,
"A lawmaking power that the Supreme Court has denied Article III tribunals surely ought not be ascribed by this court to a tribunal empowered only by an inference from Article II".

And that was one of the more interesting passages.

http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Mudd-Lincoln-As...assination

Unfortunately they just weren't able to translate a decent idea into an interesting book, so I can't recommend this one.

[L Verge]

Bob Summers of this forum is a direct descendant of Dr. Sam. Fortunately for future generations, he also researches without blinders on. He's interested in his heritage from all sides and has written excellent pieces on the family history. I recommend his major compilation The Assassin's Doctor as well as his very informative website.

If you have never read Ed Steers's His Name Is Still Mudd, you need to do so in order to see both sides of the guilty or innocent debate.

The book that Gene refers to is a follow-up of a moot court that was held as a publicity stunt (my opinion) by a Virginia law school court years ago. I have said before that Dr. Richard Mudd (who I believe I am correct in saying began the crusade to "Free Dr. Mudd" in the 1920s) was a good friend to the Surratt House Museum, and several of his children still support us. I would have loved to have had him as our public affairs officer because he sure knew how to work the press...

[LincolnToddFan]

I firmly believed in Mudd's innocence ...UNTIL I read Dr. Steer's opinion on the subject.

[wsanto]

I'm a bit prejudiced to believe that Mudd was guilty.

That being said, I find it very hard to believe that Booth donned fake whiskers in the darkest hours of the morning while sweaty and dirty and in a lot of pain after riding his horse for hours with a broken fibula.

Even if he did, you really have to suspend disbelief to argue that Dr. Mudd would be fooled into not recognizing Booth, even with the fake beard, after having spent many hours in the company of the famous actor on a number of occasions.

[L Verge]

Years ago, when the Dr. Mudd House was under the leadership of Dr. Mudd's youngest grandchild - Louise Mudd Arehart - a certain member of this forum (not me) expressed the same opinion as your last sentence, Bill. The tour stopped, and he and his wife were ushered out the door and sent to their car for making such a comment. Their tour fee was not refunded.

[RJNorton]

I wonder who that was...

[Jim Page]

My wife and I weren't escorted to the parking lot, but I was upbraided by Ms Arehart, who, in my opinion, could be a tab brittle. She didn't like my information concerning a bogus Lincoln photograph on display.

Oh, well. So it goes . . . I paid her back by not purchasing one of her little woven potholders (or whatever the heck they were) she was trying to sell in the giftshop.

--Jim

[Eva Elisabeth]

Just legally, since Booth and Herold showed up after the assassination, and JWB was his patient, wouldn't Dr. Mudd anyway have been bound by medical confidentiality and the Hippocratic Oath to not to inform the government officials? (While not bound when it came to prevent.)