My Journey on Lincoln's Assassination

[mikegriffith1]

(09-17-2018 11:00 AM)KLarson Wrote:  Mike,
I think you should read my book. When I started researching Mary Surratt's story, I believed that she was innocent and that I was going to prove it and save her! Oh, how naive I was! It took me only about two months of research to realize she was guilty of involvement with the plot. It took a couple more years of finding every primary source available, and reading all the books, to discover she was very much involved and that the trial's outcome - that she was guilty - was right. Along the way I became convinced of Mudd's guilt, too. Those years of research also showed me how many researchers, historians, and conspiracy theorists misrepresented primary sources, deliberately misquoted them, or completely ignored them because the sources did not fit with their theory. Many of the books you mentioned were written by people who shamelessly ignored the documentation or manipulated it and made fake news out of it.

Louis Weichmann was indeed afraid for his life, and so was John Lloyd. But the documentation supports his, and Lloyd's, testimony about Mary and the others. Not only did Weichmann reveal his uneasiness about what was going on in the Surratt boarding house to his supervisor, Maj. Daniel Gleason, but he also wrote to Father Menu about his suspicions, too. Booth intercepted and kept Menu's response asking for more information, so Weichmann never saw his letter. How curious that Menu knew Lou Weichmann was concerned about illegal activity in the house but later called Weichmann's testimony false. Menu was a Confederate sympathizer.. Too bad Weichmann did not learn that Booth had correspondence in his trunk that could have supported Weichmann's own defense. Mary Surratt sympathizers always claim that Lloyd and Weichmann lied on the stand. Why would Weichmann and Lloyd choose to discredit Mary when they already had half a dozen they could testify against? They did not have to implicate Mary to save themselves. Mary helped Booth in any and every way she could. She wanted Lincoln dead. She was a Confederate sympathizer. Period. She was guilty and died for her role. Why couldn't the defense find anyone to testify in Mary's defense? All the defense could drum up were a few priests who ended up testifying that they barely knew her. Others on this thread have also mentioned that later testimony revealed that Mary was involved - Atzerodt and Payne before they were hanged, Smoot years later. Her eyesight? Well, she recognized Payne well enough on earlier occasions to mention how handsome he was - even though she knew he first introduced himself as James Wood, a minister, then as Lewis Payne when he reappeared at her boarding house weeks later (when she did not seem to care who he was, only that he "was a great looking Baptist preacher!") And yes, thank you Laurie, Reverdy Johnson said in his opening statement that if he thought Mary was guilty he would not defend her. And he didn't.

Let's start with the last point first: It seems clear that Reverdy Johnson was saying that he would not have agreed to be her attorney at all if he believed she was guilty. Reverdy Johnson did in fact defend Mary Surratt. He did not appear in court very often, for the reasons I already mentioned, but he monitored the trial, requested via his team that the court delay Lloyd's testimony one day so that he (Johnson) could cross-examine him, wrote part of the closing arguments, and directed his team to request a writ of habeas corpus. So it is simply incorrect to say that he did not defend her.

Weichmann: Weichmann was first interviewed for hours by the Metropolitan Police, and after all this, the police saw no need to go back and get Mary Surratt. It was only when the military got involved, two days later, that Mary was arrested. Weichmann himself told at least two people privately that he was threatened with death if he did not implicate Mary Surratt. Additionally, Weichmann's testimony is loaded, absolutely loaded with contradictions, incredible recollections, and problematic statements. As just one example, he gave four different dates, separated by near three weeks, for the fabled attempt to abduct Lincoln on his way to the soldiers home--if the defense had known about Payne's dated oath of allegiance, they could have severely impeached Weichmann on this point, but the prosecution never introduced Payne's oath into evidence.

Mary Surratt was not the only one in the house who did not recognize Payne that night. His appearance was very different that night from how he had looked on the few occasions she had seen him previously. As for the witnesses who testified about Mary's poor eyesight, you can accuse them of lying, but they did say that she had trouble recognizing people unless they were right next to her, which is just what we would expect from someone who was severely near-sighted. Until I had my eye surgery, I was markedly near-sighted, and there were many times when I failed to recognize co-workers when I walked right by them, much to my embarrassment.

I find it interesting that Mary Surratt had two days to flee but no made no effort to leave. In fact, she carried on as usual after the police first showed up at her door hours after the assassination. When the military showed up and arrested her, she was shocked and frightened. She was doubtless aware of the mad frenzy of vengeance that had gripped the North. It was no secret that the Army often did not play by the rules of law when they decided to arrest people.

Lloyd: Honestly, I don't see how anyone can take his testimony seriously. Leaving aside the fact that he was drunk, leaving aside the fact that he admitted at the John Surratt trial that he was threatened with death if he didn't give a "fuller" statement (i.e., one that implicated Mary Surratt), leaving aside the goofy nature of his story (that at first he couldn't figure out what Mary was talking about but then she came out and said to get the "shooting irons" ready--really?), I find it very odd that the binoculars ("field glasses") that Lloyd said Mary gave him on the 14th disappeared. Where are they? How could a crucial piece of material evidence go "missing"?