No need to question this Lincoln conspirator’s guilt

[Pamela]

We don't know how many callers may have come to the house that night. I don't remember if Smoot came up in court, or in what way. Nothing definitive was proven in court regarding the mystery visitor, other than at least one person called at the boarding house soon after Mary and Weichmann returned from Surrattsville. Susan, you are guessing at the motives of the lawyers.

Aside from these debatable matters there remains the logic that supports Weichmann's belief that Booth called for the third time that day, regardless if you believe the statement that he claimed Anna made, or the conversation with Mary on the drive back to Washington that Weichmann described, or the change in her manner after someone called around 9:00 that he also noted. The logic is that Booth would have wanted to know the results of Mary's trip, that the carbines were there and at the ready, and that she had delivered the field glasses. The boarding house was nearby and easy for him to check in. After all, the trip could have been aborted. The carriage did need repair, there were all kinds of variables. It makes more sense that Booth made the third visit than not, IMO. It was a loose end that was easy for him to tie up.

Laurie, regarding your curiosity about my advocacy of Weichmann, I feel someone needs to defend him. In so many books I've read, I kept coming across digs at his character, suggestions as to his motives that usually implied negativity, weakness, etc. Even John Fazio, who likes him, said Weichmann turned state's evidence, which is not true, and as a lawyer I was surprised he made that mistake.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Weichmann's book and I feel compassion, as did Risvold for his suffering, and respect for the historical value, and the research and thoughtfulness of his effort, well designed to help anyone interested in the story of the assassination.

Yes, the book has self serving aspects; of course it would, and anyone would want to show themselves in the best light, especially since he was nationally slandered routinely for his entire life after the trial, and during the trial, for that matter, by the defense. So what? That doesn't have much impact on the value of his effort. His book was written at a time when revealing "warts and all" tell alls were an unheard of concept. I think historians and anyone with an interest in the assassination are lucky that his niece, interestingly, an actress, ultimately was the family member who got the manuscript to the perfect collector and editor. In his letters, A. C. Richards thought the book was so important, that he seemed almost desperate for Weichmann to get it published.

Compare Weichmann's book with Surratt's self serving (in the extreme) talk, and Booth's notes while on the run. I love the statement that Dr. Porter made in a letter written to Weichmann: "I have read and reread with great interest the chapters of the new book, which you were so kind as to send to me. The charm and value of personal knowledge of important incidents and events give an actuality to the narratives of history which cannot be found in the compilation of books."

BTW, I see Dr George as one of many Catholic priests or educators who had an ax to grind because a Catholic woman was hung and Weichmann was Catholic. His writings say quite alot about his prejudice and attitude.