Lucy Hale

[Eva Elisabeth]

(10-12-2015 06:39 PM)STS Lincolnite Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 05:55 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Weren't women in general less "in demand"? Clara Harris e.g. didn't have to testify. Also - is/was it likely Lucy Hale would have added anything ground-breaking?

I think in the 19th century, women would have generally been regarded as less reliable or credible witnesses. But of course that would depend on what they had to say and how it supported the case that was trying to be made.

I actually think Lucy Hale would have had some things to add. Not necessarily so much about the assassination itself or the night of April 14th, but certainly about what went on it the late fall of 1864 and spring of 1865. We may have gotten a much clearer picture of Booth's movements between cities (when he did so and why) and maybe even who he met with. Also what his moods were like and when. We might also know what information Lucy passed along to him (probably innocently). She probably had some information Booth would have liked to know about as a result of her father's position as well as her own social standing and connections.

Thanks for your thoughts, Scott! Booth was dead before the trial began and was not tried. What could Lucy Hale have added as for determining the remaining conspirators' involvement/guilt/verdict?