Help Wanted

[RJNorton]

(09-21-2015 10:12 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Consistent with this, it has been said (by Kauffman, I believe) that it wasn't Weichmann's testimony, so much, that sank Mary Surratt; it was Lloyd's (see Decapitation, p. 300).

I have trouble understanding the meaning of the word "hearsay" as used in a court of law. Just what is "hearsay?" Lloyd testified Mary "told me to have those shooting-irons ready that night, there would be some parties who would call for them." Basically every assassination book I have read says these words or words to that effect. But IMO we are totally relying on the testimony of one person without any corroborating testimony. Who could corroborate OR dispute what Lloyd reported Mary said to him? (1) John Wilkes Booth could tell us the nature of the message, but he was dead. (2) Mary Surratt could tell us the nature of the message, but she was not allowed to testify. (3) Louis Weichmann could possibly tell us, but he said he didn't hear any of the conversation. So we only have Lloyd's word, and we know he had a drinking problem.

So I would ask: Isn't John Lloyd's testimony really just hearsay? If not, what is the definition of the kind of hearsay evidence that is often thrown out in court?

During her incarceration did Mary ever tell anyone "her side" of the conversation she had with Lloyd on the 14th?

At least in part, was Mary Surratt convicted on hearsay evidence that would have been disallowed in a civil court?