Did JWB visit Mary's boarding house after the assassination?

[Susan Higginbotham]

Weichmann specifically stated that he did not know who the caller was. From the Poore transcript:

Q. At what time did you reach here?
A. We reached here at about half-past eight or nine o’clock.
Q. When did you hear, or did you hear, of the assassination of the President, and the attack on Secretary Seward, that evening?
A. I heard of the assassination of President Lincoln and the at-tack on Secretary Seward at three o’clock on Saturday morning, when the detectives came to the house and informed us of it.
Q. And not until that?
A. Not until that time.
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.

I agree that the witnesses in general were expected to answer the question put to them and nothing more, but Weichmann was a fairly chatty witness who did on occasion go beyond the scope of what he was asked:

Q. The third time you saw him was at the theatre?
A. Yes, sir: I saw him at the theatre. I also saw him once, in July, at a church in the country, the Piscataway Church. He had been to church there; and, when he came out, he got on his horse, and rode off.

***

Q. And then where did you go?
A. Then we left the National Hotel, and went to the Pennsylvania House, where Dr. Mudd had rooms. We all went into the sitting-room; and Dr. Mudd came and sat down with me, and we talked about the war. He expressed an opinion that the war would soon come to an end, and spoke like a Union man. Booth was speaking to Surratt. Booth then bade us good-night, and went out; and then Surratt and I bade Dr. Mudd good-night, and he remained there, and left the next morning.

[STS Lincolnite]

Susan, I also notice there that Weichmann says Mrs. Surratt answered the door. But from your post above Miss Jenkins said that Anna Surratt answered the door. I am not at home so I can't get to my references on the various testimonies. I definitely have some re-reading and testimony comparison to do!

[RJNorton]

In addition to his book Weichmann also maintained that the 9:00 P.M. visitor was Booth in his August 11, 1865, affidavit.

Weichmann stated:

The gentleman whom she expected at nine o'clock, on her return, called. It was, as I afterwards ascertained, Booth's last visit to Mrs. Surratt, and the third one that day. She was alone with him for a few minutes in the parlor.

https://books.google.com/books?id=D-O8Ha...22&f=false

[Pamela]

(02-23-2015 12:51 PM)STS Lincolnite Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 11:47 AM)Gene C Wrote:  I'm sure the witnesses were "coached" to answer only questions they were asked and not to add any additional information not asked for. It was the prosecutions fault for not directly asking Weichmann.

I think this is right on. I know it is typical today for witnesses to be directed to answer only the questions posed to them and not to elaborate or offer opinions. I assume it was the same in 1865.

---

(02-23-2015 11:41 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  In his book, Weichmann said that he and Mrs. Surratt got home from Surrattsville at half past eight, that he then returned the rented horse and buggy to the stable, and that while he was at supper, he heard the doorbell ring and that Mrs. Surratt answered it. He said that Mrs. Surratt had been expecting a visitor at nine that evening and that this visitor was Booth.

Weichmann testified at the conspiracy trial that he and Mrs. Surratt got back to Washington around 8:30 or 9:00 and that about 10 minutes later, while he was eating supper, someone rang the doorbell and Mrs. Surratt answered it. (That would have seemed an ideal time for him to recall Anna's alleged statement about Booth visiting an hour before the assassination, or Mrs. Surratt having told him she was expecting a visitor.)

So Weichmann's and Olivia's recollections are consistent as to the 9:00 p.m. supper and as to someone ringing the doorbell, though not in any other respect. (For what it's worth, Olivia said that she didn't hear the bell ring at any other time that night except when her own visitor came. Her age of 19 comes from census records and her tombstone at Mount Olivet, which gives a birthdate of 1846.)

Thanks Susan, that helps a lot. In my day supper was at 6:00. If you weren't there at 6:00 you got your own plate later (if there was anything left! ). But I suppose that it would make sense that in 1860s it would be common to wait for the lady of the house before commencing with supper.

I suppose Weichmann and Miss Jenkins could both be right. It could be that Mrs. Surratt was expecting Booth (and told Weichmann so) but that he didn't show up. Weichmann would have thought it was Booth (because he was expected) that rang the bell but instead it was the man (Captain Scott) delivering Miss Jenkins' papers that rang the doorbell.

In John Surratt's trial, Weichmann talked about a conversation in the parlor after the detectives left. Miss Jenkins, Miss Fitzpatrick, Mrs. and Miss Surratt and himself.

"And what did Mrs. Surratt say?"
"The talk was about the murder; everyone in the room had been told that Booth had done it; Anna Surratt commenced to weep and said, "Oh! ma, all this will bring suspicion on our house; just think of that man (we were speaking about Booth at the time) having been here an hour before the murder." "Anna, come what will", she replied, "I think John Wilkes Booth was only an instrument in the hands of the Almighty to punish this proud and licentious people."

[RobertLC]

It is obvious that somewhere along the line, Weichman lied. He stated clearly in his testimony on May 13, 1865 that he did not know who the visitor was at the Surratt boarding house the night of April 14, 1865. But in his affidavit, that Roger posted, he says, “The following facts, which have come to my recollection since the rendition of my testimony…” and then he goes on to identify that visitor at Booth. And, as Roger reported, Weichman also identified Booth as the visitor in his later book.

I think that if, on August 11, 1865, he knew Booth was the visitor then, on May 13, 1865, he also knew it. So when did he lie?

Did he try to protect Mary Surratt by not identifying Booth during his testimony? Or did he just jump on the bandwagon and, in his later writings, say that he knew it was Booth?

Regarding Gene’s question that started this thread, the evidence seems to support a visit from Booth prior to the shooting rather than after.

I imagine Booth was riding his horse pretty hard heading toward the Old Navy Yard Bridge to escape the City. Stops along the way would have been detrimental to his escape. Actually, Cobb noticed that the horse had been run hard.

Bob

[Pamela]

(02-23-2015 05:25 PM)RobertLC Wrote:  It is obvious that somewhere along the line, Weichman lied. He stated clearly in his testimony on May 13, 1865 that he did not know who the visitor was at the Surratt boarding house the night of April 14, 1865. But in his affidavit, that Roger posted, he says, “The following facts, which have come to my recollection since the rendition of my testimony…” and then he goes on to identify that visitor at Booth. And, as Roger reported, Weichman also identified Booth as the visitor in his later book.

I think that if, on August 11, 1865, he knew Booth was the visitor then, on May 13, 1865, he also knew it. So when did he lie?

Did he try to protect Mary Surratt by not identifying Booth during his testimony? Or did he just jump on the bandwagon and, in his later writings, say that he knew it was Booth?

Regarding Gene’s question that started this thread, the evidence seems to support a visit from Booth prior to the shooting rather than after.

I imagine Booth was riding his horse pretty hard heading toward the Old Navy Yard Bridge to escape the City. Stops along the way would have been detrimental to his escape. Actually, Cobb noticed that the horse had been run hard.

Bob

It's possible that Weichmann wanted to protect Anna Surratt in the first trial. The conversation in the parlor after the detectives left was witnessed by Miss Fitzgerald and Miss Jenkins.

I can't remember where I read it, but I believe there was a statement by one of the young ladies at the supper table, that Anna, not Mrs. Surratt answered the door at 9:00. I also read somewhere that I can't remember that Anna accompanied her mother into the Herndon House where Powell was staying but Weichmann said it was only Mary.

[Susan Higginbotham]

(02-23-2015 08:21 PM)Pamela Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 05:25 PM)RobertLC Wrote:  It is obvious that somewhere along the line, Weichman lied. He stated clearly in his testimony on May 13, 1865 that he did not know who the visitor was at the Surratt boarding house the night of April 14, 1865. But in his affidavit, that Roger posted, he says, “The following facts, which have come to my recollection since the rendition of my testimony…” and then he goes on to identify that visitor at Booth. And, as Roger reported, Weichman also identified Booth as the visitor in his later book.

I think that if, on August 11, 1865, he knew Booth was the visitor then, on May 13, 1865, he also knew it. So when did he lie?

Did he try to protect Mary Surratt by not identifying Booth during his testimony? Or did he just jump on the bandwagon and, in his later writings, say that he knew it was Booth?

Regarding Gene’s question that started this thread, the evidence seems to support a visit from Booth prior to the shooting rather than after.

I imagine Booth was riding his horse pretty hard heading toward the Old Navy Yard Bridge to escape the City. Stops along the way would have been detrimental to his escape. Actually, Cobb noticed that the horse had been run hard.

Bob

It's possible that Weichmann wanted to protect Anna Surratt in the first trial. The conversation in the parlor after the detectives left was witnessed by Miss Fitzgerald and Miss Jenkins.

I can't remember where I read it, but I believe there was a statement by one of the young ladies at the supper table, that Anna, not Mrs. Surratt answered the door at 9:00. I also read somewhere that I can't remember that Anna accompanied her mother into the Herndon House where Powell was staying but Weichmann said it was only Mary.

Both Nora Fitzpatrick and Olivia Jenkins testified at John Surratt's trial that Anna had answered the door for the 9:00 caller. Nora also claimed not to have remembered hearing Anna making the remark about Booth being there an hour before the assassination.

I think that Nora and Olivia may well have been conveniently forgetful on a number of points, but I'm still not convinced that Weichmann remembered Anna's remark correctly either. It seems strange to me that he wouldn't have remembered it at some point during the trial, especially since his memory was so clear on other points. I suppose it's possible that he suppressed the remark at trial to protect Anna, but if that was the case, why bring up the remark publicly just days after Anna had suffered the ordeal of having her mother hanged?

[Pamela]

(02-23-2015 10:52 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 08:21 PM)Pamela Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 05:25 PM)RobertLC Wrote:  It is obvious that somewhere along the line, Weichman lied. He stated clearly in his testimony on May 13, 1865 that he did not know who the visitor was at the Surratt boarding house the night of April 14, 1865. But in his affidavit, that Roger posted, he says, “The following facts, which have come to my recollection since the rendition of my testimony…” and then he goes on to identify that visitor at Booth. And, as Roger reported, Weichman also identified Booth as the visitor in his later book.

I think that if, on August 11, 1865, he knew Booth was the visitor then, on May 13, 1865, he also knew it. So when did he lie?

Did he try to protect Mary Surratt by not identifying Booth during his testimony? Or did he just jump on the bandwagon and, in his later writings, say that he knew it was Booth?

Regarding Gene’s question that started this thread, the evidence seems to support a visit from Booth prior to the shooting rather than after.

I imagine Booth was riding his horse pretty hard heading toward the Old Navy Yard Bridge to escape the City. Stops along the way would have been detrimental to his escape. Actually, Cobb noticed that the horse had been run hard.

Bob

It's possible that Weichmann wanted to protect Anna Surratt in the first trial. The conversation in the parlor after the detectives left was witnessed by Miss Fitzgerald and Miss Jenkins.

I can't remember where I read it, but I believe there was a statement by one of the young ladies at the supper table, that Anna, not Mrs. Surratt answered the door at 9:00. I also read somewhere that I can't remember that Anna accompanied her mother into the Herndon House where Powell was staying but Weichmann said it was only Mary.

Both Nora Fitzpatrick and Olivia Jenkins testified at John Surratt's trial that Anna had answered the door for the 9:00 caller. Nora also claimed not to have remembered hearing Anna making the remark about Booth being there an hour before the assassination.

I think that Nora and Olivia may well have been conveniently forgetful on a number of points, but I'm still not convinced that Weichmann remembered Anna's remark correctly either. It seems strange to me that he wouldn't have remembered it at some point during the trial, especially since his memory was so clear on other points. I suppose it's possible that he suppressed the remark at trial to protect Anna, but if that was the case, why bring up the remark publicly just days after Anna had suffered the ordeal of having her mother hanged?

Are you referring to Weichmann's response to Brophy's affidavit?http://www.nytimes.com/1865/07/18/news/mrs-surratt-conspiracy-interesting-statement-lj-weichmann-brophy-s-affidavit.html

I think that Weichmann may have been pushed to his limit at that time. In John Surratt's trial he testified to carrying a gun, reciting Hamlet's soliloquy "To be or not to be"about "two hundred" times and even looking down it's barrel. He said he was too much of a coward for suicide which I think he got from Hamlet, "and thus conscience doth make cowards of us all." To be or not to be is Hamlet debating the pros and cons of suicide. I think he had PTSD and understandably. He said he repeatedly pled for them to spare Mrs. Surratt's life.

I think Weichmann vented many details that didn't come out in the trial because he wasn't asked, and the statement Anna Surratt made didn't indicate she was part of the conspiracy but might have put her in a more suspicious light. I have read repeatedly that Mrs Surratt treated Weichmann like a son (and he was very accommodating of her-did everything she asked of him), and from what I've read she could be very kind--but he came to realize that she used him for nefarious purposes when she needed to. In his response to Brophy Weichmann wanted to make it very clear that he came to believe Mary was guilty as charged.

[RJNorton]

(02-23-2015 11:51 PM)Pamela Wrote:  I think Weichmann vented many details that didn't come out in the trial because he wasn't asked...

I think I have mentioned this before, but I want to ask again to see if anyone has an opinion. This regards another incident that Weichmann did not include in his trial testimony but came out later.

The incident happened during the afternoon of the assassination. Weichmann and Mary were in the buggy on the way to Surrattsville when they saw some soldiers along the roadside. Mary stopped the buggy (or asked Weichmann to do so) and asked an old farmer why the soldiers were there. She was told that they were pickets. Mary then asked if they remained on guard all night. The farmer said that they were generally called in at about 8 in the evening. Mary replied, "I am glad to know that." Weichmann and Mary then continued on.

In his book Weichmann writes, "I am very positive in regard to this affair, for it has made a lasting impression on my mind, one which will never be effaced."

If Weichmann were telling the truth, was this just innocent conversation/curiosity on Mary's part? Or was she checking to determine if the road to Surrattsville would be clear later that night? Are there other possible reasons?

[Pamela]

(02-24-2015 08:00 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 11:51 PM)Pamela Wrote:  I think Weichmann vented many details that didn't come out in the trial because he wasn't asked...

I think I have mentioned this before, but I want to ask again to see if anyone has an opinion. This regards another incident that Weichmann did not include in his trial testimony but came out later.

The incident happened during the afternoon of the assassination. Weichmann and Mary were in the buggy on the way to Surrattsville when they saw some soldiers along the roadside. Mary stopped the buggy (or asked Weichmann to do so) and asked an old farmer why the soldiers were there. She was told that they were pickets. Mary then asked if they remained on guard all night. The farmer said that they were generally called in at about 8 in the evening. Mary replied, "I am glad to know that." Weichmann and Mary then continued on.

In his book Weichmann writes, "I am very positive in regard to this affair, for it has made a lasting impression on my mind, one which will never be effaced."

If Weichmann were telling the truth, was this just innocent conversation/curiosity on Mary's part? Or was she checking to determine if the road to Surrattsville would be clear later that night? Are there other possible reasons?

Good point. Weichmann described that incident in his response to Brophy about 2 weeks after the execution. It's hard to imagine that he told prosecutors about it because it seems likely they would have used it as evidence against her. If it happened, at the time, he could have either thought it was just a random event, that she felt like talking to that farmer, or he could have thought she was thinking about their safety since they returned after dark or as it was getting dark.

He could have withheld this piece of info as he did with a few others to help her out, as I think he did with Anna. He might have rationalized to himself that some incidents fell in a gray area that he could keep quiet about. After so many attempts to "blacken" his character, and that he felt betrayed by the Surratts, he decided to put everything out there. Or he fabricated the incident to add to her guilt, for his detractors.

Checking on the pickets would have been important for her to do in this situation and I'm sure her mind would think that way since she was so involved in rebel covert activities and had been for years. In fact, it's hard to imagine that she would pass them by without wanting to know their schedule.

[Dave Taylor]

I may be throwing a wrench into the discussion here, but didn't Richard Smoot visit the boardinghouse on the night of the assassination as well?

[Gene C]

He claims he did.

Regarding Weichmann's testimony about Mrs. Surratt. I think he realy liked her (and posibly Anna) and didn't want to believe Mrs. Surratt could be involved in Booth's plot.

[RJNorton]

(02-24-2015 03:36 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  I may be throwing a wrench into the discussion here, but didn't Richard Smoot visit the boardinghouse on the night of the assassination as well?

Kate Larson mentions both the "mystery" visitor and Smoot's visit on p. 88. She has Smoot coming at about 9:30, and the "mystery" visitor earlier. Of the "mystery" visitor Kate writes, "Booth had possibly made his third and final visit that day." Her footnote for that information cites Weichmann's book and Weichmann's affidavit.

[Wild Bill]

You are correct, David, on Smoot (Unwritten Story, 11-14), his story, and Susan Jackson Mahoney's (John Surratt Trial, II, 998), are the ones that I used to construct my story of this event in Last Confederate Heroes.

[STS Lincolnite]

So, in reading through this thread, on the night of the assassination (prior to?), we potentially have the following visiting the Surratt Boarding house:

John Wilkes Booth (per Weichmann story)
Captain Scott (per Miss Jenkins who said he delivered papers for her)
Mr. Smoot (who himself said he was a visitor)
Mr. Kirby (who Mrs. Surratt is reported to have told Mrs. Holohan had been a visitor)

But several report the doorbell only rang once. Hmmm...Somebody, or more likely several people, are not telling the whole truth.

Am I correct with those listed above? Sounds more like grand central station than a boarding house!