Louis Weichmann

[Pamela]

(09-19-2015 08:26 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I need a legal answer here: For all these years, I have heard qualified historians refer to Weichmann and Lloyd as "turning state's evidence against their landlady..." Is there a difference between "turning state's evidence" and just being a "witness for the prosecution?"

(09-19-2015 08:36 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(09-19-2015 08:25 AM)Gene C Wrote:  I think Weichmann's testimony helped, but she would have been convicted without it.
- Her denial of recognizing Lewis Paine in front of the detectives,
- Anna's comment about Booth being at the house the day of the assassination,
- her trip to the Surratt Tavern (where the guns were hidden) the day of the assassination
- John's involvement as a courier and his trips to Richmond and Canada,
- the tavern that she owned (and operated only a few months prior) being a meeting place and where several people had been arrested,
- the boarding house in Washington being used as a stopping spot for a few of John's courier friends,
- Booth's picture being hidden
all this worked against her, and would/could be known without Weichmann.

Weichmann's testimony only made it a little easier for the feds, he had the details and dates, he had a close relationship with the family, but the feds had plenty of evidence against her without him. The trip to the tavern the day of the assassination was a key event, but only one of many items against her.

I agree with Herb, Stanton did what he felt he had to do for justice and to protect the country. From his viewpoint, the country was at a point of crisis. Johnson certainly didn't have the skills to deal with the situation effectively. Seward was disabled. There was no one else but Stanton.

I think Mary in one regard was like the others involved, she didn't consider the drastic consequences of her actions.

While I agree with the points that Gene brings out as detrimental to Mary, I think we have to consider that, by our standards today and in a civil court, they would likely be termed circumstantial evidence. I once asked James O. Hall whether he thought Mary was innocent or guilty. He got his sly little grin on and told me he thought she knew what was going on, but that the court failed to prove it.

I also agree that Stanton was the logical one to run the show (even if Seward had not been attacked). The assassination of Lincoln was and was treated properly as an act of war. Who better to conduct the investigation of the murder than the man who had effectively worked with Lincoln and Grant to win that war on the battlefields.

---

"Pamela, I basically agree with that portion of your post, though I'm not sure what Weichmann's motivation was. It might have been kindness, it might have been something else. After all, it was Spring, he was a young man, and Mrs. Surratt may have been charming in his eyes."

Or, Jim, how about a quick thought off the top of my head that Weichmann was the logical one to drive Mrs. Surratt to the country on her business because he was in on the plans? I don't happen to believe that he knew any details about the plans because John Surratt didn't trust him, but my explanation makes as much sense as some of the claims that have been posted here.

First I'd like to say Murphy is one adorable doggie.
If Weichmann drove Mrs Surratt into the country because he knew of the plans then why did Mary go? And why the concocted story given to him for the purpose of the trip? I asked John Fazio why he said in his book, that Weichmann turned states evidence, and he apologized and said it was a mistake and would be corrected in the next printing.

Laurie, you've asked me a couple of times why Father Mulcahy despised the Weichmann and didn't think much of his brother and family. And I've wondered why Conroy's hatred was so bizarre and intense, and Mulcahey's just so intense, and unprofessional. I'm wondering if frustrated gay urges were a factor, something which is speculated about currently regarding many historic persons, sometimes based on thin evidence without enough respect for cultural and period differences. Previously I said that Mulcahy was frustrated in his hopes to have Louis as a parishioner, in confession and counseling him about his guilt in regards to Mary. But his hatred still seems personal and over the top, and suggests something more at play. Mulcahy's information gathering in regards to Weichmann with the 15 yr old Joseph Abel feels a little hinky, too. I'm reading Michael Schein's Surratt book and he suggested that Weichmann and Surratt may have both left school on the same day without completing their studies for some infraction, as speculated by Isacsson. "The commonly stated causes for their departure may be cover stories to hide something nobody wanted to discuss."--p 13. Personally, I think this speculation is just added to his book to drive his narrative and add more dimension to his "characters".