No need to question this Lincoln conspirator’s guilt

[John Fazio]

(05-09-2016 08:18 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 06:16 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 02:05 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 09:21 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Excellent summation, Anita.

As for the items left at the Surratt Tavern on March 18: They had been sent ahead to the tavern in a buggy with David Herold with the intention that he and the goods would meet up with the gang and the captured Lincoln on March 17. When the team didn't show, Herold went five miles south and spent the night at John Chandler Thompson's hotel in T.B.

The next morning, with no one showing up still, Herold started back towards D.C. He was met on the road between that village and Surrattsville by John, Jr. and Atzerodt. They decided that it was too risky to try and get those items - especially the carbines - back into the city, so the old Surratt home became the logical hiding place. They remained there until midnight of April 14/15.

I don't believe that the original intention was to hide them anywhere. The gang and Lincoln would meet up with Herold, and all would go happily down the road towards the Potomac River and cross over in the newly purchased boat.

I've asked this before and as far as I remember received no reply - if the intention indeed was to kidnap Lincoln, this was AFAIK speculated/intended to happen using a carriage to transport him to Richmond, not on horseback (never read of this possibility/speculation). Why wouldn't they have had all the stuff in the carriage where it would have been available right away without the need of any interrupting of the flight? (This IMO indicates kidnapping had never been the actual goal.)

---

(I personally also feel Mary Surratt was much more eager to participate and oblige than her son.)

They intended to kidnap Lincoln in his own carriage. Why take time and the chance that he would fight and escape while they stuffed all the things at his feet? They could have Herold ready and waiting to hop on the seat of his buggy and boogie down the road behind them -- sorta the rear gunner?

P.S. I appear to be the lone soldier who does not believe that Booth made the third trip to the boardinghouse that night. Susan, didn't you find where Nora identified who the caller was? I think Mr. Weichmann speculated a tad too much.

In my opinion, once Mrs. Surratt had done the last chore of delivering the field glasses and message to Lloyd, Booth didn't need her anymore and wouldn't waste time going the six blocks or so to check in with her. I'm not saying that he didn't clue her in during the mid-afternoon visit that the time had come -- for kidnapping or assassinating, we know not which. Show me proof, and I might bend.

I'm not convinced about the third visit either. I think Booth had enough to keep him busy in the hour before the assassination.

Olivia Jenkins testified at John Surratt's trial that a "gentleman named Scott, of the navy" brought her two papers on the evening of the assassination. Mary Surratt in her interrogation of April 28, asked who was at her house the night of the murder, replied, "No one except our own family. A gentleman I don't know called to leave some newspapers for a niece of mine. He did not come in & I don't think I saw him. The little servant girl took the papers."

My major issue with Weichmann's claim about Booth's evening visit is that he said nothing about it during his interrogations or during the conspiracy trial--even though he was asked at the trial about a visitor to the house that evening. He said then he did not know the identity of the visitor. He didn't even attempt to speculate that it was Booth.

Q. Who came to the house between the period of your return and three o’clock on Saturday morning when the detectives came? Anybody?
A. There was some one that rang the bell; but who the person was I do not know.
Q. Was the bell answered?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. By whom?
A. It was answered by Mrs. Surratt.
Q. Was there any one at the door?
A. Yes, sir: I heard steps going into the parlor, and immediately going out, going down the steps.
Q. How long was that after you had got back from Surrattsville?
A. It must have been about ten minutes. I was taking supper at the time.
Q. That was before ten o’clock, was it not?
A. Yes, sir: it was before ten o’clock.

After the trial, however, Weichmann told Benn Pitmann that Booth had visited the boardinghouse shortly before the assassination. Only after the executions did he make this public, along with his claims that Mary had told him she was expecting a visitor, that Mary had been glad to know about the pickets being withdrawn, that Mary made the remark about rejoicing being turned into mourning, that Mary said she expected the house to be searched, and that Anna Surratt exclaimed that Booth had been at the boardinghouse an hour before the assassination.

I believe that most of Weichmann's testimony was truthful, but I suspect that after the trial, and especially after the executions, consumed with guilt, he needed to justify his actions to himself and may well have adjusted his memory accordingly--quite possibly unconsciously. Memory can perform remarkable gymnastics, particularly under stress.

Laurie, Eva, Susan:

"This IMO indicates kidnapping had never been the actual goal."

This statement puts me in mind of Mike Kauffman's query "Was this new scheme just a blind for assassination?" (American Brutus, p. 181)and my response thereto: "Of course!" It also puts me in mind of Weichmann's statement, namely:

But did Booth...intend to confine himself to this...scheme of capturing the President? Did he not have in view at this very time (December 1864--January 1865) an ulterior and more deadly plan--the assassination of Abraham Lincoln?...In the light of all these facts, what now becomes of the allegation that Booth did not conceive the desire to murder the President until after he learned of his intended visit to the theater on the night of the 14th of April? It would probably be nearer the truth to say that murder was in his heart all the time and that he was merely watching his opportunity to do the deed and...escape. (Weichmann, pp. 62, 63, 94, 95)

Kauffman's and Weichmann's judgments are, of course, echoed by those of Harris and Bingham and conform precisely to the testimony of Mrs. McDermont at Surratt's trial.

The stew gets thicker and thicker.

John