Pitman or Poore

[RobertLC]

While again looking through some of the testimony for the Trial of the Conspirators, I discovered another difference between the Pitman and Poore versions.

Pitman was the Recorder to the Commission and his version includes this May 12 entry on page 22, “The accused, MARY E. SURRATT, applied for permission to introduce the Hon. Reverdy Johnson as additional counsel for her, A member of the Commission (General T. M. Harris) objected…” We know that Harris later withdrew his objection and Johnson was accepted.

In her book “The Assassin’s Accomplice,” Kate Larson notes on page 141 that the challenge to Reverdy Johnson occurred on May 12. And Edward Steers, Jr., in his book “Blood on the Moon,” on page 221, also places the objection to Johnson on May 12.

However, Poore places this action on May 13. Page 51, “The JUDGE ADVOCATE. It is proper that the names of all gentlemen who appear as counsel should be entered on the record. Do I understand Mr. Johnson as appearing for any of these prisoners?” Page 52, “MR. JOHNSON. I do not know whether I shall be able to appear or not. I have taken no part in the case …”

Johnson did not question witnesses on May 12, but Aiken and Clampitt did. Johnson first questioned a witness on May 13 (Louis Weichmann). Does this support Poore’s account instead of Pitman?

So, have I misread or misunderstood something or do Pitman and Poore disagree on this detail? If they do, which account is correct? By the way, the Peterson version agrees with Poore.

Secondly, the May 12 hearing was closed to the public. They opened the trial on May 13 and released testimony from May 12. Witnesses for May 12 include: Steinacker, Hodspeth, Bunker, Wheeler, Deveney (cross-examined by Aiken and Ewing), Grant (cross-examined by Aiken), Simonds, Jones, Chester (cross-examined by Clampitt and Ewing).

Were those the only witnesses on May 12 and was all of the testimony released or was other testimony withheld?