Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Pamela · 07-02-2016, 11:55 PM

(07-02-2016 10:48 AM)RJNorton Wrote:
(07-01-2016 12:20 AM)Pamela Wrote: Richards described those events because of what he had read in chapter 15 of Weichmann's book, and said that Stewart's account of events and testimony were largely imagined and not accurate.

I also wonder about the validity of Richards' account. Personally I do not know of any contemporary evidence that he was present at Ford's Theatre when the President was shot (other than Richards' own word that he was).

Richards says he was there, but was he?

According to Good's book, Richards' "revelation" that he was there came on April 17, 1885, which is 20 years after the event. Captain Reed, who could have verified Richards' presence, is deceased. So is Stewart dead by this time. Richards also says in his account that Peanut John was a black boy. In other discussions we've had, it seems the evidence is quite conclusive that Peanut John was white. Richards claims Mary Lincoln yelled "guerillas" after the shot; as far as I know, no one else made this claim. Richards said he thought Booth yelled "Sic semper tyrannis" twice while on the stage; I think the vast majority of other accounts have Booth yelling this once.

If anyone can provide contemporary evidence that Richards really was in the theater when Lincoln was shot then I will stand corrected in my suspicions.

Why do you use the word revelation in quotes? I don't think that Richard's description of Peanut John as black supports your suspicion that Richards lied about being in the theater. He must have followed the trial and had many discussions about witnesses, etc., and would have known Peanut was white at some point, so if he lied he could have correctly mentioned his race , whether he was there or not. It's more likely that he just misspoke. Why would he say Mary yelled "guerillas" if he was lying? That seems like a ridiculous sort of embellishment for him to invent, and wouldn't make his "story" more credible. If he was going to lie, he would want to sound credible. And whether he thought Booth yelled the phrase once or twice is trivial, IMO.

Richards already had important involvement with the case and was a very accomplished and successful person. What would be his reason to lie about being in the theater?

RJNorton · 07-03-2016, 05:12 AM

(07-02-2016 11:55 PM)Pamela Wrote: Why do you use the word revelation in quotes?

Because the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department Superintendent waited 20 years to reveal that he was in the audience watching Our American Cousin when President Lincoln was shot. If he were telling the truth this just seems strange to me. In reading Tim Good's book I was very surprised to see the date for his first statement like this was April 17, 1885. And if there is any truth to the account of what he said at Gifford's Hall....the whole thing just seems odd to me. Pam, I am just saying how my mind works. I am not saying he didn't have a role in the subsequent investigation; I am just dubious that he was really inside the theater when the shot was fired.

Pamela · 07-03-2016, 07:21 AM

Gault's letter was written 58 years after the event. Is it likely that his account would be accurate? Who was he? I think it's important to look at information with a critical eye, which is why I question Richard's motives for lying. Why would he fabricate his experiences inside the theater? He already had an important role in the history of the assassination.

Susan Higginbotham · 07-03-2016, 08:37 AM

In the same 1885 interview (in the April 17, 1885 Washington Critic) in which Richards claimed to have been at the theater, he also claimed to have gone to Mary Surratt's house on the evening of the assassination and found her in her usual dress, with no appearance of having retired for the evening. I simply don't believe that Richards would have suppressed such incriminating evidence in 1865 had it been true.

It's also noteworthy that in the 1885 account, Richards has the stage empty when Lincoln is shot, and also has Grant at the theater, as he claims that, "In a few seconds word went round that General Grant had been shot. Then we had it that President Lincoln had been shot."

I think Richards was suffering from "rubber room" syndrome.

RJNorton · 07-03-2016, 08:55 AM

(11-25-2013 03:05 PM)L Verge Wrote: The Superintendent of Police at the time was A.C. Richards, who had been in his job less than six months. He later claimed that he had been in Ford's Theatre at the time of the assassination and had gone after Booth. Most historians think that is a fabrication.

Laurie, could you possibly name some of the historians who feel it is a fabrication? I know my own reasoning on this, but I would like to read what others say and their reasons for saying such. Thanks.

Pamela · 07-03-2016, 09:25 AM

Susan, again, Richards knew that Grant wasn't in the theater in 1885 when he made the statement. Why isn't it reasonable to believe that he thought, at the time, that Grant was in the theater, though he didn't see him, since Grant was supposed to be there? The fact that he said he thought Grant had been shot, is more suggestive of an honest recollection of his experience than a fabrication. Do you really think that Richards was such a noodle head that he was unaware of Grant's absence in 1885? Do you know that Richards didn't tell a prosecutor about his visit to the Surratt house? Why wasn't Richards called to testify in the conspiracy trial? There were many things he could have testified about.

L Verge · 07-03-2016, 10:24 AM

I cannot recall any book (other than Gary Planck's) that gives any real space to A.C. Richards at all. I am sure that I will get shot down for "hearsay," but I have been fortunate enough to have some great conversations with some great historians, and some passing attention to Richards and his veracity in later years has been a brief topic. Among those have been Hall, Kauffman, Hanchett, and I believe Brennan and Betty O.

About ten years ago, I did have email discussions with the then-historian of the Metropolitan Police Department, Nicholas Bruel, who was having a difficult time putting any meat on the bio bones of Richards - despite the fact that he was the Department's first superintendent. He was delighted to find out about (and to receive a Xerox of the Planck booklet) from me. However, Almarin Cooley Richards did not pass muster with any of the historians that I know as far as playing any significant role in identifying the events surrounding the Lincoln assassination. I did call Gary Planck at that time, and he didn't even know if he had any copies of his booklet in storage. His interest in A.C. Richards came and went mainly because he was in Florida and Richards had been also, in his retirement years.

BTW: Richards had virtually no training in police work from what I have read. He was trained as a teacher and was a very dedicated one - even founding some school - until the Civil War came along. I don't remember how he got an appointment as superintendent of the brand-new department; he must have known some politicians...

Also, Pamela, wasn't he the one that got fussed at by the War Department because he sent Weichmann and Holahan to Canada to search for John Surratt very shortly after the crime? They were amazed that a policeman would send two gentlemen, both very closely tied to those knowingly involved in the assassination and living under the same roof with them, out of the country. What guarantee did Richards have that they would return?

I do not see how anyone familiar with the circumstances could believe a man who made no statement that made it into the records in 1865, but twenty years later comes up with a story where nearly every detail is incorrect. Do I think that Richards was such a noodle head (your words, Pamela) in 1885 that he didn't know what really happened? I would not use the derogatory term of "noodle head," but I do believe that Mr. Richards may well have been suffering from a neurological disease that caused him to lose his concept of reality.

The Lincoln assassination story brings out many examples of "guilt by association." In this case, be careful not to let your interest in Louis Weichmann cause "innocence by association" in viewing the role of Richards. Because the two corresponded does not mean Richards's 1885 concoction is correct.

L Verge · 07-03-2016, 11:44 AM

Found this online in a screed referring to a case of classical contract law - Shuey vs. U.S. - authored by Joseph M. Perillo.
ir./lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article+3870&content

Notice footnote #19 in which Richards supposedly corrected Weichmann's manuscript on the trip to the alley, BUT Weichmann did not make the changes. Why?

Two men from Ford's Theatre go out in pursuit of Booth-Jacob
Ritterspaugh, a carpenter who worked for the theatre, and Joseph B.
Stewart, a member of the audience. Booth is on horseback and
Stewart runs after the horse and rider, but the horse is too swift.' 9
When Ritterspaugh returns to the theatre, Spangler slaps him and says
"Don't say which way he went." Ritterspaugh asks him what he
meant by slapping him. Spangler answers, "For God's sake, shut
up."2

"1 Spangler appears to have been crying. Spangler will be
15. See Roscoe, supra note 11, at 99-100.
16. Official Statement of Major H.R. Rathbone, National Archives, War Dept.
Records, File "R," R.B., JAO, at 74, reprinted in Roscoe, supra note 11, at 536-38.
17. This is the conventional account and an American legend. E.g., Weichmann,
supra note 13, at 152. Booth, apparently contradicting press accounts, wrote in his
diary "I shouted 'Sic semper' before I fired." Id. at 209.
18. Weichmann, supra note 13, at 153.
19. That, at least, is Stewart's testimony, accepted by Weichmann in his narrative.
See Weichmann, supra note 13, at 154-55. A.C. Richards, who was Superintendent of
the Washington Metropolitan Police at the time of the assassination, reviewed a draft
of Weichmann's narrative and cast doubt on Stewart's story. Richards, in a letter to
Weichmann, described Stewart as a shady lawyer and alleged that Stewart's story was
"apocryphal and imaginary." The letter, dated June 10, 1898, is appended by Risvold,
the editor of the volume, to Weichmann's narrative. Id. at 417. The quoted language
appears on page 418. According to Richards, Stewart and Richards went out of the
Theatre together; Booth and the horse were already out of sight. Weichmann did not
change the manuscript to reflect Richards' comments

Pamela · 07-04-2016, 01:38 AM

(07-03-2016 11:44 AM)L Verge Wrote: Found this online in a screed referring to a case of classical contract law - Shuey vs. U.S. - authored by Joseph M. Perillo.
ir./lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article+3870&content

Notice footnote #19 in which Richards supposedly corrected Weichmann's manuscript on the trip to the alley, BUT Weichmann did not make the changes. Why?

Two men from Ford's Theatre go out in pursuit of Booth-Jacob
Ritterspaugh, a carpenter who worked for the theatre, and Joseph B.
Stewart, a member of the audience. Booth is on horseback and
Stewart runs after the horse and rider, but the horse is too swift.' 9
When Ritterspaugh returns to the theatre, Spangler slaps him and says
"Don't say which way he went." Ritterspaugh asks him what he
meant by slapping him. Spangler answers, "For God's sake, shut
up."2

"1 Spangler appears to have been crying. Spangler will be
15. See Roscoe, supra note 11, at 99-100.
16. Official Statement of Major H.R. Rathbone, National Archives, War Dept.
Records, File "R," R.B., JAO, at 74, reprinted in Roscoe, supra note 11, at 536-38.
17. This is the conventional account and an American legend. E.g., Weichmann,
supra note 13, at 152. Booth, apparently contradicting press accounts, wrote in his
diary "I shouted 'Sic semper' before I fired." Id. at 209.
18. Weichmann, supra note 13, at 153.
19. That, at least, is Stewart's testimony, accepted by Weichmann in his narrative.
See Weichmann, supra note 13, at 154-55. A.C. Richards, who was Superintendent of
the Washington Metropolitan Police at the time of the assassination, reviewed a draft
of Weichmann's narrative and cast doubt on Stewart's story. Richards, in a letter to
Weichmann, described Stewart as a shady lawyer and alleged that Stewart's story was
"apocryphal and imaginary." The letter, dated June 10, 1898, is appended by Risvold,
the editor of the volume, to Weichmann's narrative. Id. at 417. The quoted language
appears on page 418. According to Richards, Stewart and Richards went out of the
Theatre together; Booth and the horse were already out of sight. Weichmann did not
change the manuscript to reflect Richards' comments

The answer to your question is likely that Weichmann followed Richard's advice, p419, Weichmann. You should read Richard's entire letter dated June 10, 1898 because Richards describes how he first became aware of Stewart's account from a synopsis in the newspapers, presumed the reporting was responsible for errors, and later read an official trial report. Richards concluded that Stewart's testimony had "no material bearing upon the matter of the identity or guilt of Booth or others." Richards advised Weichmann not to change his narrative if it is based on the official report of trial. The letter is interesting, as are all of Richard's letters to Weichmann.

Pamela · 07-04-2016, 10:07 PM

(07-03-2016 10:24 AM)L Verge Wrote: I cannot recall any book (other than Gary Planck's) that gives any real space to A.C. Richards at all. I am sure that I will get shot down for "hearsay," but I have been fortunate enough to have some great conversations with some great historians, and some passing attention to Richards and his veracity in later years has been a brief topic. Among those have been Hall, Kauffman, Hanchett, and I believe Brennan and Betty O.

About ten years ago, I did have email discussions with the then-historian of the Metropolitan Police Department, Nicholas Bruel, who was having a difficult time putting any meat on the bio bones of Richards - despite the fact that he was the Department's first superintendent. He was delighted to find out about (and to receive a Xerox of the Planck booklet) from me. However, Almarin Cooley Richards did not pass muster with any of the historians that I know as far as playing any significant role in identifying the events surrounding the Lincoln assassination. I did call Gary Planck at that time, and he didn't even know if he had any copies of his booklet in storage. His interest in A.C. Richards came and went mainly because he was in Florida and Richards had been also, in his retirement years.

BTW: Richards had virtually no training in police work from what I have read. He was trained as a teacher and was a very dedicated one - even founding some school - until the Civil War came along. I don't remember how he got an appointment as superintendent of the brand-new department; he must have known some politicians...

Also, Pamela, wasn't he the one that got fussed at by the War Department because he sent Weichmann and Holahan to Canada to search for John Surratt very shortly after the crime? They were amazed that a policeman would send two gentlemen, both very closely tied to those knowingly involved in the assassination and living under the same roof with them, out of the country. What guarantee did Richards have that they would return?

I do not see how anyone familiar with the circumstances could believe a man who made no statement that made it into the records in 1865, but twenty years later comes up with a story where nearly every detail is incorrect. Do I think that Richards was such a noodle head (your words, Pamela) in 1885 that he didn't know what really happened? I would not use the derogatory term of "noodle head," but I do believe that Mr. Richards may well have been suffering from a neurological disease that caused him to lose his concept of reality.

The Lincoln assassination story brings out many examples of "guilt by association." In this case, be careful not to let your interest in Louis Weichmann cause "innocence by association" in viewing the role of Richards. Because the two corresponded does not mean Richards's 1885 concoction is correct.

I believe the neurological disease that caused Richards to lose his concept of reality, according to you, is known as noodle head-itis. However, I'm sure if you actually read his letters you will change your diagnosis. It's probably a good idea to study available evidence of a person's mental capacity, as can be found in his letters, before suggesting neurological impairment.

Likewise, be careful not to let "guilt by association" (Weichmann a "Nancy boy") predispose you in your assessment of Richards.

The politician who appointed Richards was Lincoln.

L Verge · 07-05-2016, 01:05 PM

How in the hell did we get to the "Nancy boy" routine again?

You mentioned the noodle-headedness first, and I was responding to the strange description of what Richards gave to the happenings at Ford's that night and trying to be gentle. Make up your mind which way to swing.

And, Lincoln did not practice cronyism?

Gene C · (This post was last modified: 07-05-2016 01:39 PM by Gene C.)

Lincoln did practice cronyism, and Mary tried with some effect to get friends and/or family appointed to certain positions.

Pamela, I do believe "you are known by the company you keep" (guilty by association) carried the weight of law in my home when I was growing up. And it was enforced. It was one of those little pearls of wisdom I grew up with.

Which reminds me of this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMRj9mvBdzw

Pamela · 07-05-2016, 02:47 PM

Very amusing, Gene. Thanks for that, although he left out the phrase in question Rolleyes

. Somewhere I read, and I can't remember where, that A.C. Richards was a volunteer escort who rode along side Lincoln's carriage for some event, and I also can't remember which event it was. Lincoln remembered him from that occasion when he chose his appointment for Major and Superintendent of the Metropolitan Police. I don't know if cronyism was also involved. It doesn't seem to be the case.

L Verge · 07-05-2016, 03:35 PM

(07-05-2016 02:47 PM)Pamela Wrote: Very amusing, Gene. Thanks for that, although he left out the phrase in question. Somewhere I read, and I can't remember where, that A.C. Richards was a volunteer escort who rode along side Lincoln's carriage for some event, and I also can't remember which event it was. Lincoln remembered him from that occasion when he chose his appointment for Major and Superintendent of the Metropolitan Police. I don't know if cronyism was also involved. It doesn't seem to be the case.

Don't faint, Pamela, but I am actually agreeing with you as to the above information on Richards! At the time of Lincoln's first inaugural, Richards volunteered as a deputy marshal for the parade from Willard's to the Capitol. He was assigned the right wheel of the presidential carriage, so he would have had the opportunity to chat with Lincoln and Buchanan.

At the beginning of the war, he quit teaching to work as a financial clerk in the post office department. By 1862, he was elected as an alderman in the Third Ward and became active in city politics. However, the U.S. government took over the city's municipal affairs during the war, leaving elected officials with little to do.

In 1864, a list of names was submitted to Lincoln for consideration as Superintendent of the Metropolitan Police Force. Lincoln recognized the name (probably from the inaugural parade), and Richards received the official appointment on December 1, 1864. He was in office just a little over four months before the assassination.

This is in a biographical piece in the appendix of Risvold's editing of Weichmann's book, right before the copies of Richards's and Weichmann's correspondence. I remembered discussing his path to the police department with that agency's historian years ago.

If the phones will stop ringing, I'll start to refresh my memory by reading those letters.

Pamela · 07-06-2016, 12:50 AM

(07-03-2016 08:37 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote: In the same 1885 interview (in the April 17, 1885 Washington Critic) in which Richards claimed to have been at the theater, he also claimed to have gone to Mary Surratt's house on the evening of the assassination and found her in her usual dress, with no appearance of having retired for the evening. I simply don't believe that Richards would have suppressed such incriminating evidence in 1865 had it been true.

It's also noteworthy that in the 1885 account, Richards has the stage empty when Lincoln is shot, and also has Grant at the theater, as he claims that, "In a few seconds word went round that General Grant had been shot. Then we had it that President Lincoln had been shot."

I think Richards was suffering from "rubber room" syndrome.

You are wrong when you said that Richards said the stage was empty when Lincoln was shot. From We Saw Lincoln Shot, "We had been seated probably about 15 minutes, when at a time the stage in front of the scenery was nearly free of all persons, a shot was heard."-A.C. Richards
As for Richard's account of his visit to the Surratt house and his description of Mary and her behavior, I suggest you read Richard's letters to Weichmann with Risvold's thoughtful comments. The facts and circumstances of his account are not as simplistic as you have expressed.
Richards does not have Grant at the theater, "In making our (with Capt. Reed) usual rounds of the area we were in the vicinity of Ford's theater. Captain Reed suggested that as General Grant was supposed (my italics) to be in the theater to go in."