Almarin Cooley Richards

[John Fazio]

(07-29-2016 03:49 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I never recall reading anything about Stewart being a "shady lawyer." This forum is the first time I have seen it mentioned. Who was the source for this assessment of the man's character? Sounds suspiciously like something Richards would have said, but I can't find it in his correspondence.

Laurie:

This is from Richards's letter to Weichmann of June 10, 1898:

Probably you did not know Stewart. I did. His career as a lawyer
had been somewhat shady.

John

---

(07-29-2016 04:02 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Richards did call Stewart "shady" in his letter of June 8, 1898, to Weichmann and claims that before the war, he arrested Stewart in connection with some railroad bonds but "no serious charge" was ever brought against him. Stewart's difficulties with the bonds, however, appears to have arisen long after the war, according to his obit here (see bottom of first column).



http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/s...nge&page=1

(It's the August 8, 1882, Washington Evening Star. Not sure why it's not linking.)

Stewart appears to have been a rather colorful character.

But what portions of his testimony are "replete with indications of intentional falsehood"?

Susan: I quote from Decapitating the Union:

Stewart lied. There does not appear to be any way around it. ...there can be no other conclusion. The unalterable fact is that his testimony is contrary to the testimony of at least seven other witnesses--Ritterspaugh, Richards, Ferguson, Debonay, Smith, Anderson and Burroughs, with an assist from Hawk. Further, if we disregard Stewart's testimony, the testimony of the others is easily reconcilable...Are there clues in Stewart's accounts that suggest fabrication? It appears so. He does not mention Hawk, though we know he engaged Hawk on stage. He does not mention Richards either, though we have Richards telling us he was with him at the critical moments. Nor does he mention Ritterspaugh, though Ritterspaugh preceded him out the door and even left the door open for him, which is consistent with Richards's account. In Stewart's accounts, he is a one-man show, which betrays self-service and which is contrary to all other evidence. Further, while all the other accounts are relatively brief, direct and matter-of-fact, Stewart's is a veritable symphony of detail , demonstrating one of the most extraordinary recalls ever to grace the pages of history or a complete hoax whose very detail exposes it as such...Stewart's story about how he did a pas de trois with Booth and his bay mare, coming within inches of stopping Booth and his transportation, is fanciful, to put it mildly, or a tissue of lies, to put it more emphatically. (Anderson was unambiguous: Booth tore through the door, touched the horse and was off like a shot. No delay, no pas de trois and no Stewart.)

John