Where was John Surratt on April 14, 1865 ?

[Susan Higginbotham]

(03-29-2017 07:11 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(03-29-2017 05:35 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  Roger and Laurie,

I was puzzling with the same today, had a busy day and right now finds the time to post the following.

What if Booth AND Smoot visited the boardinghouse? Booth at 9 PM and Smoot at 9.30 PM.?

Remember what is said about the 9 PM visit:
“The boarders were having supper in the street-level dining room when they heard the booted thuds of someone climbing the outside steps. The doorbell rang, and Mrs. Surratt answered it. By the sound of the footsteps the residents knew she had taken the person into the parlor above the dining room. About five minutes later the diners heard the visitor leave.”

And this wrote Smoot about his visit:
“I went direct to Mrs. Surratt's. As I approached the house I saw a woman standing on the porch. Her face was so hidden in the capacious depths of a huge sunbonnet that I could not see her features. As I started to ascend the steps the woman turned abruptly and went into the house, almost closing the door, and at the same time asking: 'Who is it?' I gave my name. The door was quickly reopened, and I was admitted into the presence of Mrs. Surratt.”

Two different stories!

It was Weichmann who told (on July 15, 1865, after Mary’s execution) the first story, after John P. Brophy tried to (as Weichmann called it) “blacken his character”. In his account he wanted the public to think that there was little doubt that Mary Surratt was guilty and that all what was said about his character were lies. He didn't believe that Mary was an innocent woman. He declared: “That a woman so kind, so compassionate, so generous and so religious, should have been cognizant of plots to capture or assassinate the President of the United States, is hardly to be believed. Yet it is strangely true.” So, he wanted to silence Brophy, and many others, maybe also his own conscience. Therefore he told about Mary’s actions and words, even that she deserved death. In Weichmann’s words: “She could have prevented all. But no; she was too much infatuated; she loved the South too much.” Already before the 4th of March Mrs. SURRATT was continually remarking to everybody that something was going to happen to "Old Abe". She wept and closed her house when Lee surrendered. When the illumination took place her home remained dark and silent. And on Good Friday Booth visited her THREE times. In reference to the THIRD visit she was (according to Weichmann) very anxious to be at home at 9 o'clock, (returning from Surrattsville) saying she had made an engagement with some gentleman, who was to meet her at that hour. I asked her if it was BOOTH, she answered neither yes nor no. If it was Booth, why not told that? Was that because she expected someone else (THAT MAN)?

When about a mile from the city, on Weichmann’s and Mary’s return from Surrattsville, and having from the top of a hill caught a view of Washington swimming in a flood of light and glory, raising her hands, she said, according to Weichmann: "I am afraid all this rejoicing will turn into mourning, all this glory into sadness." Weichmann asked her what she meant. She replied that after sunshine there was always a storm, and that the people were too proud and licentious, and that God would punish them. After telling this Weichmann told of the 9 pm visit. But was he really truthful? I suspect that he wanted the people to think that it was Booth who visited Mary, but he NEVER saw Booth, only heard the steps of a man. If Mary spoke with Booth one hour before the assassination, she was guilty, because she could have prevented it. But Mary did not prevent it, so it was obvious that Mary was guilty, and Weichmann was hoping that the public would judge him fairly, by telling that Mary was guilty.

Roger, you say that Mary agreed to go to Good Friday church services with Eliza Holohan. I think that Mary and Eliza indeed went to church, but returned due to poor wether. They arrived in the boardinghouse, just at the moment Smoot arrived, because he wrote: “I saw a woman standing on the porch. Her face was so hidden in the capacious depths of a huge sunbonnet that I could not see her features.” Was this woman Eliza Holohan? After the door was closed Smoot gave his name, after that Mary reopened the door quickly.

Smoot’s story make sense. It is in accordance with Kate Larson and Betty Trindal. I don’t think Smoot’s visit was “accidental”, Mary expected him (remember his visit on April 12th). Maybe the women went with the intention to return between 9 or 10 pm. Smoot said he was there at 9:30 pm.

According to Kate Larson, the two ladies departed after Booth's visit. In that case she had to depart AFTER 9 pm. And why did Weichmann NOT notice that? I have problems to believe Weichmann 100%.

If there were TWO visits that evening (Booth and Smoot) why did Weichmann than NEVER mention that? Because there were no TWO visits, but ONE (Smoot’s visit). It all fits exactly with Smoot’s story.

BTW: Laurie thank you for your support. I really do think that Smoot was the one and Weichmann was only clearing his own conscience, now Mary was dead, by publicly saying incriminating things about her, only to show that her punishment was just and he did his duty.

We really need to rethink the timeline of Mary's activities that day. She never left DC until about 2 pm, if I remember correctly. Unless they were pushing the horse(s) at a fast pace, they would not have arrived at the tavern much before 4 pm. They then waited around for Lloyd to return from Upper Marlboro.

Wasn't it about 6 pm or later when they finally saw Lloyd, had to stop to let him fix the buggy, and then get on their way to DC? The bridges supposedly were closed at 9 pm, so they did manage to get back inside the city before then.

They then took dinner (which Weichmann terms as tea). If it was prepared ahead of time (by Susan Jackson or Anna and Olivia), it would still have to be warmed up. Since it was Good Friday, it was likely a sparse meal; but that would still make it close to 9 pm by the time they finished eating. Had the others eaten before they arrived? Standard supper in those days was a lighter meal served about 7 pm. The Holohans were paying "customers." Didn't they need to be fed on time - especially if Eliza planned on going to church? If the church service had already started before Mary arrived home, why didn't Eliza (and her children) go on ahead? Had Anna and Olivia gone during the day?

Did a clock chime, or did Weichmann look at his pocket watch to determine exactly what time it was that they heard footsteps? Or, did he guesstimate when he divulged his stories to the authorities? Did he actually hear the arrival of Smoot?

Now, let's consider the weather that night. I have seen references to a light rain while Booth was exiting the city. Has that been confirmed? Was it raining at 9:30 pm? Did Smoot mention rain when he saw the woman in what was obviously a scuttle bonnet (not a sunbonnet)?

Booth would shoot Lincoln within 45 minutes if we go with the 9:30 hour. Was there a heavy rainstorm at that time? Was the dying Lincoln carried across Tenth Street in a storm? Did the Presidential party arrive at the theater in rain? Was it a brief, freak shower that started and forced Mary and Eliza to turn around and go home instead of going to church? If it was raining already, why did they start out in the first place?

Had Mary been to church earlier that day? Was she feeling guilty that she had shirked her Catholic duties? Instead of just asking Weichmann to pray for her intentions, did she feel the need to sit in a confessional? Were they offering confessions on Good Friday?

My books at home are packed away, and I don't have time to seek answers for my questions with the conference in just 48 hours. Am I making sense with my questions or just frivolously ruminating on ideas? Have these little bits and pieces been considered by various authors, or have they just repeated the standard story that Weichmann may have embellished a bit (or failed to give other details)?

According to Nora Fitzpatrick, Anna was sick on April 14 and went to bed early that evening. My guess is that either Olivia, being Mary's niece, or Nora, being close to the family, might have helped with meals in Mary's absence and Anna's indisposition.

Nora also testified that she and Mary had gone to communion on Thursday, April 13, and Eliza Holohan testified that she and Mary frequently attended church during Lent.