Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Pamela · 07-29-2016, 10:53 PM

(07-29-2016 01:11 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:
(07-29-2016 10:58 AM)Pamela Wrote: Susan, the trial transcript bothered you, and the reason you gave is syntax.

Clarvoe:
A. He gave me his name as Weichmann. Said he: No sir, he is not in the city. Said I: His mother is in. Does she live here?

Susan Higginbotham:
Interesting, but given the strange syntax, I think he probably said, or meant to say, "His mother lives here. Is she in?"

Then you thought it helpful to compare McDevitt's testimony from the same trial, but in reality, it doesn't support your argument:

McDevitt:
"We asked for Mrs. Surratt, if she lived there;...."

Your syntax solution negates what both detectives said, which was questioning if Mary lived there, not stating it as a fact. The trial transcript is probably best left untampered with, because the changes you make reverse what both detectives said.

However, you might want to consider syntax problems in another portion of the transcript. Perhaps Lloyd, who was a drunk, misheard or misspoke the phrase, or the transcriber miswrote "shooting irons". Maybe Mary said "shining irons" or "ironing boards". What a difference that would have made!

I don't see the discrepancy myself if Clarvoe's syntax is corrected. The two detectives speak to Mrs. Holohan, who's looking out her window, and ask her if Mrs. Surratt lives there.

"A. I think after the bell was rung, a lady [Mrs. Holohan] put her head out of the second story window—that is the window over the parlor—and asked us who it was. We asked for Mrs. Surratt, if she lived there; she said, she did . . ."

Just after they receive their affirmative answer from Mrs. Holohan, Weichmann opens the door:

"we said, we wish to come in immediately; the door was then opened by Mr. Weichmann; he was dressed in his shirt sleeves . . ."

No need to ask Weichmann at that point if Mrs. Surratt lives there, since they just got that information from Mrs. Holohan, only if she is in. Hence my suggestion of "His mother lives here. Is she in?"

But if Richards had indeed been there before them, and had left a contingent of detectives guarding the place (as I think he says in one of his Weichmann letters), why would McDevitt and Clarvoe need to ask either question? They would know from Richards that Mary lived there, and they would know from their colleagues that she hadn't left the house.

It's not mere syntax, however, that makes me doubt Richards' story of meeting with Mary. First, as I mentioned earlier, I have the utmost difficulty believing that a competent chief of police investigating a presidential assassination would go to a house which the assassin was known to frequent, talk to a landlady who expressed no surprise at the assassination and who had plainly been waiting for someone, and leave without searching the place or interrogating any of the rest of the occupants, particularly the sleeping Weichmann and Mr. Holohan. (Contrast this with the visit by McDevitt et al, where the entire place was searched and everyone, including the servants and the young Holohan girl, was roused from his or her bed.) Second, I have even more difficulty believing that Richards would suppress such important evidence of Mary's guilt if he possessed it in 1865; I'm not convinced by the argument that he was trying to distance himself from the investigation. Third, assuming that Richards did give the government the information, I can think of no reason whatsoever why the government wouldn't make use of it at the conspiracy trial; the guilty verdict against Mary wasn't a foregone conclusion. And fourth, not a single person, not even Richards himself until 20 years after the fact, puts Richards at the boardinghouse. Certainly the most logical place for him to be would be at police headquarters, directing operations.

That's some kind of tortured logic.

OK, first Clarvoe didn't testify to any conversation with Mrs. Holahan, but McDevitt did. Mrs. Holahan didn't testify about a conversation with detectives and she wasn't asked in the trial. Whether the determination that Mrs. Surratt lived in the house came from Weichmann or Mrs. Holahan is minor. The question was asked and the answer was given, agreed by both detectives. And that was important since you can be at a house but not live there as Mary was at the tavern earlier but she didn't live there, and Mary lived at the boarding house in the afternoon but she wasn't in.

Second, you aren't correcting syntax, you are altering the court transcript to say the reverse of what it does say.

Trial of John Surratt, Volume 1, p.696
Clarvoe:
A. ...I asked him if John Surratt was in.
Q. Who was that man?
A. He gave me his name as Weichmann. Said he, "No, sir, he is not in the city." Said I, "His mother is in. Does she live here?

Clarvoe's statement, "His mother is in.", which is the critical statement, since it confirms that Clarvoe already had knowledge that Mary was in the house, is in response to the information he just got from Weichmann. It was a statement of fact almost as a retort to the statement that John wasn't in. Clarvoe didn't ask Weichmann if Mary was in the house. He told him.

Your judgement of Richards ' competency or what you believe his actions should have been or what evidence he "suppressed" or what you imagine the consequences would have been are your opinions and beside the point.