New Search - HELP

[Susan Higginbotham]

For an example of where the conspiracy trial transcription "tidies up" reality, read the testimony of Anna Surratt. We know from the newspaper accounts that she broke down on the stand, started demanding to know where her mother was, and finally had to be led out in a state of near-collapse. The transcript reflects none of this; the only clue that something is amiss is the point where Ewing suddenly breaks in and begins asking Anna very short, simple questions.

Appellate courts are well aware of the limitations of a transcript in capturing a witness's nuances and demeanor, and for that reason defer to trial courts in matters of witness credibility.

I'm not saying that the same thing happened with Clarvoe or that his testimony was deliberately altered. I'm simply pointing out that written transcriptions have their limitations, witnesses misspeak, and court reporters, being human, are capable of making mistakes, especially when reporting a long trial in the sweltering heat of 1865 Washington.

Bottom line, however, is that you choose to give credence to Richards's recollections. I regard them with considerably more skepticism. You haven't convinced me to believe otherwise, and I'm not going to convince you to believe otherwise, so I suggest we drop what others are surely finding a tedious topic.