Post Reply 
No need to question this Lincoln conspirator’s guilt
05-23-2016, 07:48 PM
Post: #36
RE: No need to question this Lincoln conspirator’s guilt
(05-23-2016 04:19 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  
(05-22-2016 11:50 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  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.

In his book Weichmann writes: he and Mary were traveling along the exact same road Booth would use later that night to escape from Washington. Weichmann and Mary were in the buggy when they saw some soldiers along the roadside. Mary stopped the buggy and asked an old farmer why the soldiers were there. She was told that they were pickets. Mary then asked if they remained on guard all night. The farmer said that they were usually called in at about 8 in the evening. Mary replied, "I am glad to know that." Weichmann and Mary then continued on.

Since 1996 students have been writing me asking my opinion of whether or not Mary knew something was going to happen on April 14th. I always use the "picket story" in my replies, and tell them IMO Mary did indeed know something was about to go down. It makes little sense to me that a totally innocent woman would be that curious about when the pickets would depart (and would be glad to know they would be gone by the time Booth would be riding by).

How Weichmann could not testify about this has always been a major mystery to me. As Susan says, this is damning evidence (IMO). Thank you, Susan, for giving the possibilities for Weichmann leaving this out of his testimnoy. Pam, what do you think? I would love to get inside Weichmann's brain on this one and know for certain why this "picket information" never came out at trial.

Hi Roger, Weichmann explained in detail the emergence of his recollection and what he did about it in his book, p.167 (and I don't see why not take him at his word)
"I am very positive in regard to this affair, for it has made a lasting impression on my mind, one which will never be effaced. The circumstances came back to my recollection during the progress of the Conspiracy trial in 1865 after reading the testimony of other witnesses and during the summing up of the lawyers. I then related it to Mr. Benn Pitman, one of the stenographers of the court, who in turn communicated it to General Henry L. Burnett, one of the judge advocates, but the information came too late to be used as evidence by the Government.
"The following letter from General Burnett explains itself:
'Judge Advocates Office
Department of Ohio
Cincinnati, August 16, 1865

Louis J. Weichmann,
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Sir:

Your published statement contains one inaccuracy. It was not long before the trial that these additional statements were made known to me. They came to me, as you are aware, from Mr. Pitman from your statement to him. This was after the trial had closed as far as the evidence was concerned, and the arguments had been commenced.
Very respectfully, Your obedient servant, H.L. Burnett, Judge Advocate'.

"I did not at first comprehend the importance of this evidence. I can realize it's force now, especially when it is recollected that on that very night Booth and Herold, fresh from their bloody work, dashed down that road past the spot where the pickets had been, onto Surrattsville, on to Bryantown, to the Potomac, to Virginia, and finally to death.

"I, at first, thought that Mrs Surratt's action in reference to the pickets had been prompted by mere curiosity, but I am satisfied now that there was a deeper significance behind it, and that her questions to the old man were dictated by the desire to know if the road would be clear that night for Booth and Herold."

"I desire to thank you, sir, for your testimony on behalf of my murdered father." "Who are you, sonny? " asked I. "My name is Tad Lincoln," was his answer.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
RE: No need to question this Lincoln conspirator’s guilt - Pamela - 05-23-2016 07:48 PM

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)