Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Steve · (This post was last modified: 09-21-2017 01:08 AM by Steve.)

I agree with John in regards to the testimony and hearsay. Besides the credibility issues that might or might not have appeared to the jury, another important reason why cross-examination wasn't really necessary was because Mrs. McClermont never identified John Surratt as one of the men she overheard that day. It's not as if the defense disputed that Booth, Atzerodt, and Herold were involved in the assassination - the question at the heart of the trial was whether Surratt himself had any involvement beyond the (supposed)kidnapping plot.

Here's a link to Mrs. McClermont's full testimony (beginning on page 365):

https://books.google.com/books?id=tls_i-...nt&f=false

In her testimony, she heard one of the three men say the name "Jim". If they were indiscreet enough to talk about a murder plot in public, albeit in hushed tones; why would Booth, Herold, or Atzerodt use an alias?

I was able to find a 10 Sept. 1864 Washington DC marriage record of Elizabeth W. Sommers and Robert McClermont. The absence of any other McClermonts in the 1860 and 1870 censuses and Washington city directories lead me to conclude this is indeed her:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XLDN-8MX

and I findagrave entry with an obituary for a son from her first marriage:

https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cg...=157213684

I find it hard to believe that if the conversation took place a month or so before the assassination that she would mistakenly place it a year earlier only a couple years later during Surratt's trial. As mentioned before Booth wasn't in Washington in April 1864 and wouldn't even be in Washington again until November 1864. Wouldn't McClermont be able to remember if she overheard the conversation before or after her marriage?

All these problems lead me to doubt the credibility of her testimony.