No need to question this Lincoln conspirator’s guilt

[L Verge]

(05-25-2016 11:55 AM)Pamela Wrote:  Laurie, are you referring to Kirby as the one who visited the house soon after their return from Surrattsville? Weichmann had this to say, p174: "If that was so, was was not Mr. Kirby placed on the stand? But Mr. Kirby, in court and out of it since July 1865, when the statement was given to the world by me, that it was Booth, has never contradicted the fact as I stated it, nor has he said that it was he, and not Booth that called....It was....very natural for Booth to be anxious to ascertain if his orders had been carried out, and to learn if the road was clear, so that he could,after the commission of his crime,escape in safety to the Potomac. And from whom was he more likely to obtain this information than from the woman whom he had chosen to do his bidding?"

I was not referring to Mr. Kirby. Susan's excellent research on the inhabitants of the boardinghouse turned up Olivia Jenkins's statement that it was someone from the Navy Yard bringing her papers from home. Miss Jenkins was Mary Surratt's niece and was spending the Easter holiday with Mary and Anna. I view Weichmann's assumption that it was Booth one of the things that a capable attorney should have caught him on during the trials.

Mr. Kirby did not say anything afterwards as to whether or not he was the 9 pm visitor because he knew that he was not. And after what the country had gone through at that point, I would have kept my mouth shut and not stirred up the embers either!

P.S. Knowing the social customs of the mid-1800s, I do not find it unusual that someone would be visiting the Surratts at 9 pm, especially if just delivering some items. Without farms and roosters to force one out of bed down on the farm, many city dwellers did not hop into their pajamas and feather beds by 9 pm.