No need to question this Lincoln conspirator’s guilt

[Gene C]

(05-24-2016 11:10 PM)Pamela Wrote:  I realize that I seem to be the only one on this forum that challenges biased and unsubstantiated statements like the ones Susan made, so I guess that makes me "entrenched".

I enjoy the information Susan and Pam bring to the forum, and it's OK to question what people say, but let's be careful how we express ourselves, and the comments we make about others.

[RJNorton]

(05-25-2016 08:31 AM)Gene C Wrote:  let's be careful how we express ourselves, and the comments we make about others.

Yes, this is what brought an end to the Friends of Lincoln Mailbag back in 2010.

I am still very curious about Mary questioning the old farmer about the pickets on the road to Surrattsville. I think most books I have read say Booth asked Mary to take the field glasses to Lloyd and tell him to ready the weapons hidden at the tavern. But what if Booth were actually less concerned with the field glasses and weapons, and more concerned with whether or not the road he would use that night was guarded by soldiers? Could he have asked Mary to check on "road conditions" during his second boardinghouse visit? I am one of those who feel Weichmann was truthful about a third Booth visit that night. And, perhaps, the real reason for the third visit was to find out if Mary had determined if the road were safe. And, so, on his way to Ford's, Booth gets the news from Mary that the soldiers would be gone by 8. He then proceeds to the theater after hearing this "good" (for him) news.

Is this scenario too far out or is it possible?

(Possibly David Herold, during his April 13th "scouting" mission, had seen the pickets and reported this information to Booth?)

[Dennis Urban]

I think your scenario is completely plausible. I generally don't like to surmise what was in other people's mind at the time but I have always wondered what JWB discussed with MS at that short 9 pm meeting. MS confirming to Booth that the pickets would be gone makes perfect sense. Booth knew this would be primary his route out of town and confirmation that the road would be clear was indeed good news for him and certainly eased his mind. His secondary escape route I believe was farther to the north and through the Bladensburg area which would have taken considerably longer.

[L Verge]

I also think Roger's scenario is plausible - even though we are ignoring more substantial evidence as to who visited the boardinghouse at 9 pm (and it probably wasn't Booth). Weichmann pretty much indicated that he assumed it was Booth, but did not see him.

I wish that we had some indication as to how many pickets were actually on duty and where they were located. Booth didn't seem worried about passing a more substantial trouble point at the Navy Yard bridge. I am only guessing that he was counting on the pickets not knowing what had happened in D.C. and that he would saunter past them also.

Going back to my original question as to how you became entrenched in the Weichmann story, let me assure you that, while I have a proud Southern background and am not the least bit ashamed of my Confederate ancestors, I gave up fighting the Civil War many long years ago. I am just totally entrenched in studying all aspects of the Lincoln assassination field - including the character make-up of the various people involved. I like people and am intrigued as to what makes them tick. Of course, I have to surmise what led them onward based on what the books tell us; but when scores of well-read researchers develop the same mind-set about an event or person of history, I think it's safe to think we're on the right track.

I bring this up because Floyd Risvold's editing of the Weichmann manuscript was published in 1975, the year in which we were heavily involved in training guides who would be conducting tours at Surratt House upon its opening on May 1, 1976. Mr. Risvold was a good friend of our mentor and godfather, James O. Hall, and was quickly welcomed into our "gang," and conversed with many other experts. It was the consensus then (and appears to continue today as more people enter the field of study) that Louis told the truth most of the time in 1865 and 1867, but as time went on and his hurt/anger over treatment grew, his manuscript became more self-serving. I believe that it was Dr. Joseph George of Villanova University who reminded us that "the first law of nature is self-preservation." Just as John Surratt was trying to save his family's name, Weichmann was trying to save his.

In summary, I guess what I'm trying to say is that you are the first person I have ever come in contact with who champions Louis Weichmann with so much passion. No one is asking you to change, just to clarify with facts as to how you have reached your decision.

[Pamela]

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?"

[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.

[Pamela]

Who was the someone and what were the papers? Weichmann was cross examined by very capable lawyers. Reverdy Johnson, for one.

[Susan Higginbotham]

Both Mary during her interrogation on April 28, 1865, and Olivia at John Surratt's trial stated that a gentleman had brought newspapers for her. Mary said that she did not know the man and that the servant girl took the papers; Olivia said that he was a "gentleman named Scott, of the navy."

https://books.google.com/books?id=HzwuAA...ia&f=false

Since Weichmann testified at the conspiracy trial that he did not know who the evening caller was, there was no need for the defense at that trial to call Olivia to the stand to contradict his testimony or to cross-examine him on that point. Incidentally, I haven't seen it, but there's a letter from Burnett to Holt dated August 4, 1865, in which Burnett expresses his unhappiness with Weichmann not having mentioned Booth's alleged evening visit until after the trial. It's in file 1700, RG153, Records of the JAG.

[RJNorton]

In his book Weichmann supports his contention that Booth was the visitor by writing that when the detectives left on the morning of the 15th Anna Surratt cried out, "Oh, Ma! Mr. Weichmann is right; just think of that man (John W. Booth) having been here an hour before the assassination. I am afraid it will bring suspicion upon us."

[Pamela]

The defense could have and should have questioned her about the visit since she supposedly knew who the visitor was. They also should have produced Mr Scott. Not to do so suggests that Olvia lied.

[Susan Higginbotham]

The defense should have questioned whom? If you mean Olivia, she didn't testify at the conspiracy trial. Again, Weichmann didn't name Booth as the evening caller until after the conspiracy trial, there was no need during that trial for the defense to call Olivia to contradict him.

Olivia's testimony at John Surratt's trial about her visitor was mostly consistent with that given by Mary at her interrogation on April 28--days after Olivia had been released from prison, so Olivia couldn't have known what her aunt said on that date. The only inconsistency is that Mary said that the servant took the papers, while Olivia said that Anna Surratt answered the door.

I can think of several reasons why the defense didn't produce Scott at John Surratt's trial: (1) On cross-examination, the prosecution didn't make an issue of the identity of the caller, so there was no need to belabor the issue; (2) Scott couldn't be tracked down; or (3) Scott was dead. Reading the cross-examination of Olivia, I think the first reason was the most likely.

[L Verge]

(05-25-2016 01:44 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  In his book Weichmann supports his contention that Booth was the visitor by writing that when the detectives left on the morning of the 15th Anna Surratt cried out, "Oh, Ma! Mr. Weichmann is right; just think of that man (John W. Booth) having been here an hour before the assassination. I am afraid it will bring suspicion upon us."

And what proof do we have that Anna actually said that? The detectives had left the premises. Did Anna ever admit to such a statement? I don't recall her or anyone else mentioning this at the 1865 trial.

[Susan Higginbotham]

(05-25-2016 02:41 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 01:44 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  In his book Weichmann supports his contention that Booth was the visitor by writing that when the detectives left on the morning of the 15th Anna Surratt cried out, "Oh, Ma! Mr. Weichmann is right; just think of that man (John W. Booth) having been here an hour before the assassination. I am afraid it will bring suspicion upon us."

And what proof do we have that Anna actually said that? The detectives had left the premises. Did Anna ever admit to such a statement? I don't recall her or anyone else mentioning this at the 1865 trial.

That was one of the things Weichmann in his August 11, 1865, affidavit claimed not to have remembered until after the trial. I have a very hard time believing that a man as intelligent as Weichmann didn't regard that as important to the government's case at the time he gave his testimony.

[L Verge]

(05-25-2016 02:17 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  The defense should have questioned whom? If you mean Olivia, she didn't testify at the conspiracy trial. Again, Weichmann didn't name Booth as the evening caller until after the conspiracy trial, there was no need during that trial for the defense to call Olivia to contradict him.

Olivia's testimony at John Surratt's trial about her visitor was mostly consistent with that given by Mary at her interrogation on April 28--days after Olivia had been released from prison, so Olivia couldn't have known what her aunt said on that date. The only inconsistency is that Mary said that the servant took the papers, while Olivia said that Anna Surratt answered the door.

I can think of several reasons why the defense didn't produce Scott at John Surratt's trial: (1) On cross-examination, the prosecution didn't make an issue of the identity of the caller, so there was no need to belabor the issue; (2) Scott couldn't be tracked down; or (3) Scott was dead. Reading the cross-examination of Olivia, I think the first reason was the most likely.

Thank you, Susan. We've been dealing with school groups and walk-ins at the museum since 10:30 this morning, so your prompt (and I believe correct) answer regarding Mr. Scott and the papers is much appreciated. As for Attorney Johnson's examination of Weichmann, I found no reference to the 9 pm visit, so no need for Johnson to quiz him on it.

[Pamela]

So who was Mr Scott? Why would anyone bring Olivia newspapers ever, let alone at 9:00 at night precisely when Booth was due to confirm that Mary had done her job for him? If Mary was anxious to make sure that the guns and whiskey were good to go one can imagine how anxious Booth was. The boarding house was only a hop skip and a jump from Ford's so it's hard to imagine that Booth wouldn't have checked back. After all, what if the guns were gone, sold or disposed of in some fashion? Lloyd didn't like having them there. Booth would have to have a back up plan because he needed to be armed while on the run. What if he needed to blow the head off of a pesky Union solder or to pistol whip a former slave who hesitated in doing his bidding? He was gun-less when he raced toward the Potomac until he got a carbine at the tavern. That must have been unnerving for him. An insecure Assassin! Oh yes, he would have needed to know the guns were ready for him. He would have checked in with Mary.
Were the defense lawyers legally prevented from asking who came to the house at 9:00 from one of their witnesses?