Help Wanted

[L Verge]

(09-21-2015 06:07 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 11:53 AM)L Verge Wrote:  On page 331 of American Brutus, Michael Kauffman states: "Lou Weichmann returned from Canada on April 28, and the following day, Stanton committed him to the Carroll Annex. It was no secret that Weichmann was turning state's evidence, and his fellow prisoners hated him for it. There was something unseemly about a man who would testify against a woman... But Weichmann was under tremendous pressure to cooperate, and the incentives often sounded like threats." Kauffman cites the James R. Ford Papers previously mentioned on this thread.

With both Hall and Kauffman stating that Weichmann turned state's evidence, it seems to me that deeper digging is called for (but it ain't gonna be me to do the digging!).

Laurie:

We are dealing here with what is referred to in the legal profession as a term of art. It has a specific meaning, as I previously said, but it is frequently used loosely in a way that does not comport with its true meaning. I, in fact, did just that in "Decapitating" and will try to correct the error before another printing is made. I suspect, without knowing for sure, that both Hall and Kauffman made the same mistake I made, namely confusing testimony against wrongdoers by one who was in close proximity to such wrongdoers, but not actually a wrongdoer himself, with testimony given by one who was as much a wrongdoer as those against whom he is testifying. Weichmann was never charged, never indicted, never tried, nor did he ever indicate that he was one of them. I recall that Kauffman said, in his book, that Weichmann was the last person Booth would have invited into his conspiracy. Well, if he wasn't part of the conspiracy, then he could not have "turned state's evidence". He simply chose to help the government, and he said so in his testimony, swearing under oath that he did so without the expectation of reward and without having been threatened by Stanton or anyone else. He was always an outsider in the boarding house. An additional motivation, therefore, might have been to even the score somewhat for all the abuse and humiliation he had taken from them.

John

John

The one that he did the most damage to, however, was the woman who had done the least abuse and humiliation to him. Please don't take that to mean that I think Mrs. Surratt was completely innocent - just that, in 1865, she bore the brunt of his testimony and that is what he was judged on later. And, evidently, he suffered through that stigma until the end of his life.