New Search - HELP

[Pamela]

(07-03-2016 10:44 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Found this online in a screed referring to a case of classical contract law - Shuey vs. U.S. - authored by Joseph M. Perillo.
ir./lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article+3870&content

Notice footnote #19 in which Richards supposedly corrected Weichmann's manuscript on the trip to the alley, BUT Weichmann did not make the changes. Why?

Two men from Ford's Theatre go out in pursuit of Booth-Jacob
Ritterspaugh, a carpenter who worked for the theatre, and Joseph B.
Stewart, a member of the audience. Booth is on horseback and
Stewart runs after the horse and rider, but the horse is too swift.' 9
When Ritterspaugh returns to the theatre, Spangler slaps him and says
"Don't say which way he went." Ritterspaugh asks him what he
meant by slapping him. Spangler answers, "For God's sake, shut
up."2

"1 Spangler appears to have been crying. Spangler will be
15. See Roscoe, supra note 11, at 99-100.
16. Official Statement of Major H.R. Rathbone, National Archives, War Dept.
Records, File "R," R.B., JAO, at 74, reprinted in Roscoe, supra note 11, at 536-38.
17. This is the conventional account and an American legend. E.g., Weichmann,
supra note 13, at 152. Booth, apparently contradicting press accounts, wrote in his
diary "I shouted 'Sic semper' before I fired." Id. at 209.
18. Weichmann, supra note 13, at 153.
19. That, at least, is Stewart's testimony, accepted by Weichmann in his narrative.
See Weichmann, supra note 13, at 154-55. A.C. Richards, who was Superintendent of
the Washington Metropolitan Police at the time of the assassination, reviewed a draft
of Weichmann's narrative and cast doubt on Stewart's story. Richards, in a letter to
Weichmann, described Stewart as a shady lawyer and alleged that Stewart's story was
"apocryphal and imaginary." The letter, dated June 10, 1898, is appended by Risvold,
the editor of the volume, to Weichmann's narrative. Id. at 417. The quoted language
appears on page 418. According to Richards, Stewart and Richards went out of the
Theatre together; Booth and the horse were already out of sight. Weichmann did not
change the manuscript to reflect Richards' comments

The answer to your question is likely that Weichmann followed Richard's advice, p419, Weichmann. You should read Richard's entire letter dated June 10, 1898 because Richards describes how he first became aware of Stewart's account from a synopsis in the newspapers, presumed the reporting was responsible for errors, and later read an official trial report. Richards concluded that Stewart's testimony had "no material bearing upon the matter of the identity or guilt of Booth or others." Richards advised Weichmann not to change his narrative if it is based on the official report of trial. The letter is interesting, as are all of Richard's letters to Weichmann.