Almarin Cooley Richards

[Pamela]

(07-29-2016 08:25 PM)L Verge Wrote:  My brain is getting fuzzy here from so much discussion, but didn't Stewart's elaborate explanation of what went on come almost immediately after the assassination; whereas, Richards's came decades later?

I also remember Mike Kauffman referencing Harry Hawk saying something about running off the stage and hiding when he saw Booth coming at him with a knife - something about Hawk had been romancing one of Booth's ladies?? If he wasn't there during the Stewart-Richards race, how could his statements mean anything?

I also remember Mike (serving as our narrator on the Surratt bus tours over the escape route) talking about Booth having to get his horse under control because it was somewhat spooked by the assassin's quick mounting. Mike said that Booth had his left leg in the stirrup trying to control the horse. He didn't go "off like a shot. No delay..." I can't remember if this is included in American Brutus, but it was a major point for Mike's theory that the leg was not broken in the jump to the stage because he was bearing all his weight on his left leg as he tried to control the horse.

Being a one-man show does not mean self-service if one is the only person around doing anything for heaven's sake, John. Your opening two sentences above reflect one of the most frequent comments that people have made to me about your book and your legalese style. You make flat statements and expect everyone to agree. "...there can be no other conclusions." Yes, there can be throughout the entire assassination story. That's what has kept it fresh and interesting.

---

(07-29-2016 05:02 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Richards did call Stewart "shady" in his letter of June 8, 1898, to Weichmann and claims that before the war, he arrested Stewart in connection with some railroad bonds but "no serious charge" was ever brought against him. Stewart's difficulties with the bonds, however, appears to have arisen long after the war, according to his obit here (see bottom of first column).



http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/s...nge&page=1

(It's the August 8, 1882, Washington Evening Star. Not sure why it's not linking.)

Stewart appears to have been a rather colorful character.

But what portions of his testimony are "replete with indications of intentional falsehood"?

I can't understand how A.C. Richards arrested Stewart "before the war" for railroad bond improprieties. The Metropolitan Police Department was not created until August 6, 1861. Before its creation, Richards was a teacher and then a local politician in his ward. He did not become the Superintendent until 1864, and apparently got the appointment because Lincoln recognized him as being a volunteer escort on Inauguration Day in 1861. Talk about political patronage...

I have also been spending time trying to find something that I remembered about Richards claiming that he took up headquarters at Petersen's - in the back parlor - and began interviewing witnesses. He was the one who ordered Booth's arrest. I guess he's shoving Stanton and the War Department aside also? Interestingly, police headquarters was a half-block down the street from Petersen's. Why not set up shop at his own desk. But wait, there is another Richards's version somewhere that says he was at headquarters.

The citation for this is a 2009 article from something called The Spectrum, which appears to have been an outgrowth of USA Today. Unfortunately, the link no longer exists.

In one or two instances Richards witnessed the testimony given by one or more individuals who had evidence, a spur, I remember, before Judge Olin on April 15, 1865. I don't recall the location, but I assumed it was in the Peterson house. If you search for Richards and/or Olin in the index of The Evidence you will find it.