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.

Susan, I' m not trying to convince you of anything. I don't care about your beliefs and you don't care about mine, and it's not the issue. I began posting on this thread in response to remarks about A.C. Richards who I do care about, in that I think his role in the assassination is interesting and should be looked at fairly. Skepticism is fair. Cooking the books isn't.

I am impressed at the lengths you will go to negate Clarvoe's testimony, now Anna Surratt is thrown into the mix, lol. It must really bother you. Yes, everyone misspeaks, suffers from heat, makes mistakes, gets headaches, stomach aches, family problems, anything and everything that affects the human condition, and all these things can affect transcriptions, people writing letters, reporters, everything and everyone doing anything at all. Apply your rational to every last word of the entire transcript, every letter you find and news article you can find. And factor in time, of course. To be fair. Otherwise it just looks like you disagree with Clarvoe's statement and want to change it to say what you want.

"lol, it must really bother you." No, it doesn't bother me; I was simply offering up an example.

The personal tone you keep taking here doesn't add any weight to your arguments, but while we're LOL-ing, I recall you going to some impressive lengths to explain away Richards' misstatement that the stage was entirely empty when Lincoln was shot, including accusing me of misquoting him. When I pointed out that I had taken the quote from the original newspaper article and that "We Saw Lincoln Shot" contained a typo, you didn't, of course, have the courtesy to acknowledge your mistake with regard to me, but responded with, "Again, Richards knew there was one actor on the stage when the shot was fired. The entire country knew it and probably half of the world. As you know, reporters can misquote and make mistakes." (see posts 30-32). So evidently you're willing to allow for human error when it suits you.

But leaving this aside, even if Clarvoe did say that "his mother is in," why assume he learned this from Richards? And if he had learned this from Richards, wouldn't he have also learned from Richards that Mary lived at her boardinghouse?