Help Wanted

[John Fazio]

(09-21-2015 06:25 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(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.

Laurie:

An excellent point. But most of Weichmann's testimony relative to Mary was in the nature of praise, not condemnation (see Pitman, p. 115; Weichmann, pp. 267-270). Consistent with this, it has been said (by Kauffman, I believe) that it wasn't Weichmann's testimony, so much, that sank Mary Surratt; it was Lloyd's (see Decapitation, p. 300). Nevertheless, it is certainly true that he was stigmatized and lived in fear for the rest of his life.

John

---

(09-21-2015 04:25 PM)barryssentials Wrote:  Damn you crazy ex-lawyer...turned successful author. You are always so logical in your thinking and approach when picking apart a good argument. LOL. Keep it up.

I miss you my friend and was so glad to see you weigh in on this.

You know me. I won't commit to a firm belief on a topic until I have more than one solid source to compare. To assist me in this endeavor could you help me with something. Regarding Clampitt's description of the execution, I have looked high and low in my files and for some reason, that particular piece of research has gone 'poof'. I'd like to re-read it again if you have a copy you could send me.

I may free up by end of the week and would like to take another look at this and my other files and see if I can find a connection to help with Dennis Urban's question.

Laurie, Roger and Jim, so glad to touch base with you again here. I always leave it way too long. Shame on me.

Have a great day.

Barry

Barry:

Wonderful to have you back among the living. How is the River Styx? And how is my old friend Charon? The creep; I should think the sulfur would have done him in by now.

See Susan Higginbotham's message above. She gives the link to Clampitt's account. I do believe it is this to which you refer.

Stay well and, yes, don't leave us so often and for so long. We need more laughs.

John (the only guy who knows what your surname means)