No need to question this Lincoln conspirator’s guilt

[Pamela]

(05-23-2016 12:50 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  I said I believed that most of his testimony was truthful. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through his testimony in two trials line by line and tell you what I don't think is truthful, since I wasn't calling him a liar.

And, yes, I do believe he felt a sense of guilt at having given the testimony that (along with Lloyd's) sent Mary Surratt to the gallows. Certainly he spent the rest of his life justifying his actions to himself and to others and searching for approval. Again, that doesn't mean I think he was lying, or that Mary Surratt was guiltless. One can feel guilty even about being honest.

There are several possible explanations for Weichmann's omitting damning evidence against Mary at his conspiracy trial testimony (such as her inquiry about the pickets, his certainty that Booth was the 9 pm caller, etc.) One is that he simply forgot until after the trial, which I suppose is possible but seems unlikely given his multiple interrogations, his lengthy testimony, and the considerable time he had in prison to mentally replay everything that happened in the days and hours before the assassination. Another is that he withheld the evidence in an attempt to protect Mary, which would be chivalrous but, of course, but not in accordance with his duty to tell the government everything he knew. The third possibility is the one that I mentioned above. I don't pretend to be privy to the thought processes of someone who's been dead for over a century, however, which is why I prefaced my comment with "I suspect."

When you say "most" of his testimony was truthful, what does "most" mean? 60%? 90%? As an attorney and writer you know the power and importance of words, their implications and meanings. I am neither and I get that. I believe you thoroughly researched the trial testimony for your book (congratulations) and if you are going to accuse the star witness of untruthful testimony (which is the logical inference from your statement) in the trial of the conspirators, you should be able to back it up with facts. I didn't say you called him a liar, I asked if testifying untruthfully was the same as lying. Weichmann endured lengthy cross examination from all of the defense lawyers, including Reverdy Johnson and was unimpeached.

You said, "Certainly he spent the rest of his life justifying his actions to himself and to others and searching for approval."
You can't possibly know that, and you even admit that you "don't pretend to be privy to the thought processes of someone who's been dead for over a century." And how do you support your claim that Weichmann spent the rest of his life justifying his actions to others? From the hundreds of interviews he granted to the press? That didn't happen. There is plenty of Weichmann correspondence but from what I've read, which is mostly the Richards and Porter correspondence, he was trying to gather as many facts as he could for his book, (which he ultimately trusted to his family to publish although he could have published during his lifetime and satisfied his "search for approval") and to be as accurate as possible in regards to the facts of the conspiracy, for himself and others like Dr. Porter and A.C. Richards.

You say, " I do believe he felt a sense of guilt at having given the testimony that (along with Lloyd's) sent Mary Surratt to the gallows." and justify your opinion with his thought processes that you claim to know even though you say you can't know them, and he spent the rest of his life "searching for approval". In reading the A.C. Richards and Dr. Porter letters my take away was a search for clarity, not approval, and BTW, Richards and Porter were clearly impressed with Weichmann and his conduct.

Where and why is his guilt?