Help Wanted

[Dennis Urban]

Barry, is not Clampitt's description you are seeking that which Susan H. linked on 9/17 (see above). If there is another description of th execution provided by John Clampitt, I, too, would like to read it. I appreciate the help you folks are providing to me. I am obsessing on this question. I see Laurie made the same suggestion just above.

[John Fazio]

(09-21-2015 11:53 AM)L Verge Wrote:  On page 331 of American Brutus, Michael Kauffman states: "Lou Weichmann returned from Canada on April 28, and the following day, Stanton committed him to the Carroll Annex. It was no secret that Weichmann was turning state's evidence, and his fellow prisoners hated him for it. There was something unseemly about a man who would testify against a woman... But Weichmann was under tremendous pressure to cooperate, and the incentives often sounded like threats." Kauffman cites the James R. Ford Papers previously mentioned on this thread.

With both Hall and Kauffman stating that Weichmann turned state's evidence, it seems to me that deeper digging is called for (but it ain't gonna be me to do the digging!).

Laurie:

We are dealing here with what is referred to in the legal profession as a term of art. It has a specific meaning, as I previously said, but it is frequently used loosely in a way that does not comport with its true meaning. I, in fact, did just that in "Decapitating" and will try to correct the error before another printing is made. I suspect, without knowing for sure, that both Hall and Kauffman made the same mistake I made, namely confusing testimony against wrongdoers by one who was in close proximity to such wrongdoers, but not actually a wrongdoer himself, with testimony given by one who was as much a wrongdoer as those against whom he is testifying. Weichmann was never charged, never indicted, never tried, nor did he ever indicate that he was one of them. I recall that Kauffman said, in his book, that Weichmann was the last person Booth would have invited into his conspiracy. Well, if he wasn't part of the conspiracy, then he could not have "turned state's evidence". He simply chose to help the government, and he said so in his testimony, swearing under oath that he did so without the expectation of reward and without having been threatened by Stanton or anyone else. He was always an outsider in the boarding house. An additional motivation, therefore, might have been to even the score somewhat for all the abuse and humiliation he had taken from them.

John

John

[L Verge]

(09-21-2015 06:07 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 11:53 AM)L Verge Wrote:  On page 331 of American Brutus, Michael Kauffman states: "Lou Weichmann returned from Canada on April 28, and the following day, Stanton committed him to the Carroll Annex. It was no secret that Weichmann was turning state's evidence, and his fellow prisoners hated him for it. There was something unseemly about a man who would testify against a woman... But Weichmann was under tremendous pressure to cooperate, and the incentives often sounded like threats." Kauffman cites the James R. Ford Papers previously mentioned on this thread.

With both Hall and Kauffman stating that Weichmann turned state's evidence, it seems to me that deeper digging is called for (but it ain't gonna be me to do the digging!).

Laurie:

We are dealing here with what is referred to in the legal profession as a term of art. It has a specific meaning, as I previously said, but it is frequently used loosely in a way that does not comport with its true meaning. I, in fact, did just that in "Decapitating" and will try to correct the error before another printing is made. I suspect, without knowing for sure, that both Hall and Kauffman made the same mistake I made, namely confusing testimony against wrongdoers by one who was in close proximity to such wrongdoers, but not actually a wrongdoer himself, with testimony given by one who was as much a wrongdoer as those against whom he is testifying. Weichmann was never charged, never indicted, never tried, nor did he ever indicate that he was one of them. I recall that Kauffman said, in his book, that Weichmann was the last person Booth would have invited into his conspiracy. Well, if he wasn't part of the conspiracy, then he could not have "turned state's evidence". He simply chose to help the government, and he said so in his testimony, swearing under oath that he did so without the expectation of reward and without having been threatened by Stanton or anyone else. He was always an outsider in the boarding house. An additional motivation, therefore, might have been to even the score somewhat for all the abuse and humiliation he had taken from them.

John

John

The one that he did the most damage to, however, was the woman who had done the least abuse and humiliation to him. Please don't take that to mean that I think Mrs. Surratt was completely innocent - just that, in 1865, she bore the brunt of his testimony and that is what he was judged on later. And, evidently, he suffered through that stigma until the end of his life.

[John Fazio]

(09-21-2015 06:25 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 06:07 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 11:53 AM)L Verge Wrote:  On page 331 of American Brutus, Michael Kauffman states: "Lou Weichmann returned from Canada on April 28, and the following day, Stanton committed him to the Carroll Annex. It was no secret that Weichmann was turning state's evidence, and his fellow prisoners hated him for it. There was something unseemly about a man who would testify against a woman... But Weichmann was under tremendous pressure to cooperate, and the incentives often sounded like threats." Kauffman cites the James R. Ford Papers previously mentioned on this thread.

With both Hall and Kauffman stating that Weichmann turned state's evidence, it seems to me that deeper digging is called for (but it ain't gonna be me to do the digging!).

Laurie:

We are dealing here with what is referred to in the legal profession as a term of art. It has a specific meaning, as I previously said, but it is frequently used loosely in a way that does not comport with its true meaning. I, in fact, did just that in "Decapitating" and will try to correct the error before another printing is made. I suspect, without knowing for sure, that both Hall and Kauffman made the same mistake I made, namely confusing testimony against wrongdoers by one who was in close proximity to such wrongdoers, but not actually a wrongdoer himself, with testimony given by one who was as much a wrongdoer as those against whom he is testifying. Weichmann was never charged, never indicted, never tried, nor did he ever indicate that he was one of them. I recall that Kauffman said, in his book, that Weichmann was the last person Booth would have invited into his conspiracy. Well, if he wasn't part of the conspiracy, then he could not have "turned state's evidence". He simply chose to help the government, and he said so in his testimony, swearing under oath that he did so without the expectation of reward and without having been threatened by Stanton or anyone else. He was always an outsider in the boarding house. An additional motivation, therefore, might have been to even the score somewhat for all the abuse and humiliation he had taken from them.

John

John

The one that he did the most damage to, however, was the woman who had done the least abuse and humiliation to him. Please don't take that to mean that I think Mrs. Surratt was completely innocent - just that, in 1865, she bore the brunt of his testimony and that is what he was judged on later. And, evidently, he suffered through that stigma until the end of his life.

Laurie:

An excellent point. But most of Weichmann's testimony relative to Mary was in the nature of praise, not condemnation (see Pitman, p. 115; Weichmann, pp. 267-270). 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). Nevertheless, it is certainly true that he was stigmatized and lived in fear for the rest of his life.

John

---

(09-21-2015 04:25 PM)barryssentials Wrote:  Damn you crazy ex-lawyer...turned successful author. You are always so logical in your thinking and approach when picking apart a good argument. LOL. Keep it up.

I miss you my friend and was so glad to see you weigh in on this.

You know me. I won't commit to a firm belief on a topic until I have more than one solid source to compare. To assist me in this endeavor could you help me with something. Regarding Clampitt's description of the execution, I have looked high and low in my files and for some reason, that particular piece of research has gone 'poof'. I'd like to re-read it again if you have a copy you could send me.

I may free up by end of the week and would like to take another look at this and my other files and see if I can find a connection to help with Dennis Urban's question.

Laurie, Roger and Jim, so glad to touch base with you again here. I always leave it way too long. Shame on me.

Have a great day.

Barry

Barry:

Wonderful to have you back among the living. How is the River Styx? And how is my old friend Charon? The creep; I should think the sulfur would have done him in by now.

See Susan Higginbotham's message above. She gives the link to Clampitt's account. I do believe it is this to which you refer.

Stay well and, yes, don't leave us so often and for so long. We need more laughs.

John (the only guy who knows what your surname means)

[RJNorton]

(09-21-2015 09:12 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?

[John Fazio]

(09-22-2015 04:42 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 09:12 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?

Roger:

To answer your questions intelligently, I had to go my library. Reaching to the top shelf I accidentally pulled the entire unit on me and am now in the hospital with broken legs and arms. The doctor said I need three weeks to recover. Therefore, it will be that long before I have answers for you. The doctor asked me how it happened. I told him I was responding to a query from a guy named Roger Norton. He said "That trouble-maker! We've had problems with him before!"

Kidding of course. I'll get to this later today. I'm in a hurry now.

John

[Pamela]

I just want to comment from what I've noticed in court proceedings, and I have no legal training whatsoever. Many times a witness is asked if they took any action based on a conversation they had with a defendant, and the are told not to say what the defendant said. The witness, in this case, Lloyd, would testify that he went to where the guns were hidden in the tavern and removed them and put them in his room, and later that night two men arrived on horseback and he gave one of the guns to Herold and both men were given whiskey to drink. Those were the actions he took as a result of the conversation he had with Mary a few hours prior. The jury can deduce what was said by the defendant based on the resulting actions taken by the witness.

If heresay was a problem in this instance in a Mary's trial, I suppose Lloyd's evidence could have been presented in that way. As far as I know, defendants couldn't testify in either civil of military trial in those days, with the exception of one state which I think was Maine.

[RJNorton]

Thanks, Pam, for replying. Your answer is logical and much appreciated. The only thing I would say is that I have read that Lloyd was asleep when the two arrived; in other words Lloyd was not up waiting for anyone. Thus, it would seem Mary's message, if it really were exactly as Lloyd stated in court, was not of sufficient importance to him to keep him awake that night. (if it's true that Lloyd was asleep when Herold and Booth arrived)

[Pamela]

Roger, the conversation was not about what the "parties" would do that night in Washington and what the guns were needed for. The question asked of Lloyd wasn't (in this theoretical, if he couldn't testify to her words), "As a result of your conversation with Mary, did you feel a great need to stay awake as part of the actions you took?" Lloyds actions were damning to Mary's case without him having fore knowledge of the attacks. His actions were that he retrieved guns hidden in the tavern by John Surratt and given to a conspirator with Booth after the crime. In my non professional opinion!

[L Verge]

I generally avoid dealing with anything that smells like legalese because I am such a dummy in that realm. However, are we missing one very important point here? We're dealing with a military court that is focusing on conspiracy law. Doesn't that sort of remove our Law & Order views of how a court works?

Special Judge Advocate John Bingham was very specific in his final argument. He stressed the major point that would indicate guilt on the part of all the accused: "It is not material what the nature of the indictment is, provided the offense involve a conspiracy. Upon indictment for murder, for instance, if it appear that others, together with the prisoner, conspired to perpetrate the crime, the act of one, done in pursuance of that intention, would be evidence against the rest." Wasn't he reciting the conspiracy law? Isn't part of that the English common law of "vicarous liability?"

The way I interpret it is that the court didn't need to know specifics; they only had to see proof of a link between Booth (the assassin) and any one of the other accused prisoners. The fact that it could be proven that Mary, Powell, Herold, and Atzerodt were linked to Booth up to the end is what sent them to the gallows.

[RJNorton]

Thanks, Laurie. In this trial I assume that if one of the defense attorneys had tried to object to witness testimony on the basis of hearsay it would have been (automatically?) overruled.

[John Fazio]

Roger, Pamela, Laurie:

I tell you without hesitation that there is not one lawyer in 100 who truly understands the hearsay rule. I am among the 99. It is so complicated that some systems of jurisprudence do not even have it, preferring instead to admit all of it and then treat it as an issue of how much weight to give it rather than as an issue of admissibility. Generally stated, it refers to testimony that is given by a witness who relates not what he or she knows personally, but what others have said, and that is therefore dependent on the credibility of someone other than the witness. Easy, right? In your dreams, because there are (in Ohio, anyway) 22 exceptions to the rule, and that's only when the availability of the declarant (i.e. the one whose statement is sought to be admitted, not the witness testifying) is immaterial. There are another six exceptions when the declarant is unavailable. Then there is what is known as "hearsay within hearsay", aka "double hearsay" and "multiple hearsay". For it to be admitted, both parts have to fall within an exception to the general rule. Further, and quite apart from the exceptions, one must distinguish between hearsay and statements which are not hearsay. What are the latter? Well, try this:

1)Prior statement by a witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is a) inconsistent with his testimony, and was given under oath subject to cross examination by the party against whom the statement is offered and subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or b) Consistent with his testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or c) one of identification of a person soon after perceiving him, if the circumstances demonstrate the reliability of the prior identification.

Easy, right?

There is another example of non-hearsay, but I'll spare you.

Lloyd's testimony as to what Mrs. Surrat said to him obviously fell within an exception to the rule. His testimony was not even objected to by very competent defense counsel. What exception? Perhaps a "present sense impression", or perhaps an "excited utterance", or perhaps "then existing, mental , emotional, or physical condition", or perhaps a "statement against interest".

John

[L Verge]

Oh good lord! You lost me on the fourth sentence. High praise to those of you who passed your bar exams.

[RJNorton]

THANK YOU, John. Please recall that I began my question with saying that I have trouble with understanding the concept of hearsay. I did not realize how complex the subject was. Your efforts in explaining are most appreciated.

Hopefully you won't mind - I have another question along these same lines. Would the words of a dead man also come under an exception? For example, how about the conversation Cobb said he had with Booth? Cobb said Booth gave his real name. These were the words of a dead man - unchallenged in court. We accept Cobb's word on this as true, but all we have is Cobb's recollection of what a man, then dead, said.

Are Booth's words admissible in court due to an exception in the hearsay rule?

In 1992 I was on a jury in Illinois. A widow was suing her dead husband's doctor for malpractice. The trial lasted two weeks, and the judge would never allow the deceased man's oral conversations to be admitted as evidence. His written words, such as letters he wrote, were admitted, but not his oral words as heard by others. The judge was consistent in his rulings....written words, yes; oral words, no. Obviously we have two totally different situations here, but if this Illinois judge's rules were applied to the conspiracy trial, Booth's diary would have been admissible but not his conversations as reported by others.

[Wild Bill]

So hearsay is what the judge will let you get away with?