Did JWB visit Mary's boarding house after the assassination?

[Pamela]

(02-23-2015 10:52 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 08:21 PM)Pamela Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 05:25 PM)RobertLC Wrote:  It is obvious that somewhere along the line, Weichman lied. He stated clearly in his testimony on May 13, 1865 that he did not know who the visitor was at the Surratt boarding house the night of April 14, 1865. But in his affidavit, that Roger posted, he says, “The following facts, which have come to my recollection since the rendition of my testimony…” and then he goes on to identify that visitor at Booth. And, as Roger reported, Weichman also identified Booth as the visitor in his later book.

I think that if, on August 11, 1865, he knew Booth was the visitor then, on May 13, 1865, he also knew it. So when did he lie?

Did he try to protect Mary Surratt by not identifying Booth during his testimony? Or did he just jump on the bandwagon and, in his later writings, say that he knew it was Booth?

Regarding Gene’s question that started this thread, the evidence seems to support a visit from Booth prior to the shooting rather than after.

I imagine Booth was riding his horse pretty hard heading toward the Old Navy Yard Bridge to escape the City. Stops along the way would have been detrimental to his escape. Actually, Cobb noticed that the horse had been run hard.

Bob

It's possible that Weichmann wanted to protect Anna Surratt in the first trial. The conversation in the parlor after the detectives left was witnessed by Miss Fitzgerald and Miss Jenkins.

I can't remember where I read it, but I believe there was a statement by one of the young ladies at the supper table, that Anna, not Mrs. Surratt answered the door at 9:00. I also read somewhere that I can't remember that Anna accompanied her mother into the Herndon House where Powell was staying but Weichmann said it was only Mary.

Both Nora Fitzpatrick and Olivia Jenkins testified at John Surratt's trial that Anna had answered the door for the 9:00 caller. Nora also claimed not to have remembered hearing Anna making the remark about Booth being there an hour before the assassination.

I think that Nora and Olivia may well have been conveniently forgetful on a number of points, but I'm still not convinced that Weichmann remembered Anna's remark correctly either. It seems strange to me that he wouldn't have remembered it at some point during the trial, especially since his memory was so clear on other points. I suppose it's possible that he suppressed the remark at trial to protect Anna, but if that was the case, why bring up the remark publicly just days after Anna had suffered the ordeal of having her mother hanged?

Are you referring to Weichmann's response to Brophy's affidavit?http://www.nytimes.com/1865/07/18/news/mrs-surratt-conspiracy-interesting-statement-lj-weichmann-brophy-s-affidavit.html

I think that Weichmann may have been pushed to his limit at that time. In John Surratt's trial he testified to carrying a gun, reciting Hamlet's soliloquy "To be or not to be"about "two hundred" times and even looking down it's barrel. He said he was too much of a coward for suicide which I think he got from Hamlet, "and thus conscience doth make cowards of us all." To be or not to be is Hamlet debating the pros and cons of suicide. I think he had PTSD and understandably. He said he repeatedly pled for them to spare Mrs. Surratt's life.

I think Weichmann vented many details that didn't come out in the trial because he wasn't asked, and the statement Anna Surratt made didn't indicate she was part of the conspiracy but might have put her in a more suspicious light. I have read repeatedly that Mrs Surratt treated Weichmann like a son (and he was very accommodating of her-did everything she asked of him), and from what I've read she could be very kind--but he came to realize that she used him for nefarious purposes when she needed to. In his response to Brophy Weichmann wanted to make it very clear that he came to believe Mary was guilty as charged.