New Search - HELP

[L Verge]

(07-10-2016 12:10 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 10:41 PM)SSlater Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 03:02 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  The original article in the Critic quotes Richards as stating that the stage was "entirely" free of all persons. The reprinted version in We Saw Lincoln Shot mistakenly renders "entirely" as "nearly." See column 7:

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/s...d-1/seq-1/

(That's why I prefer to check originals whenever possible. Mistakes do creep in.)

As for Grant, you're quoting quite selectively. Later in the article, Richards states that "in a few seconds word went round that General Grant had been shot," which suggests that the audience thought that the person shot had been Grant. The Presidential party, however, had entered the theater late and with fanfare, and with Major Rathbone and Clara Harris in the place of the Grants, so the audience at that point was well aware that Grant was not in the theater, whatever Richards himself might have supposed when he entered the theater.

Incidentally, J. B. Stewart in his April 15 statement makes no mention of meeting Richards at the theater after the assassination.

I've read Richards' letters to Weichmann. Interestingly, as Richards himself admitted to Weichmann, McDevitt was adamant at the time of the Richards-Weichmann correspondence that Richards had not been at the boardinghouse after the assassination, and McDevitt didn't place him there in his 1865 testimony either. In fact, none of the four men who came to the boardinghouse place Richards there, IIRC.

Susan. Did you ever read the "The Original Atzerodt Confession"? Surrratt Courier Oct 1988. Atzerodt never said that they were going to mine the White House. He said they were going to Mine the Kirk House. Can anyon explain that one? NO GUSSES. Plez
Pardon my spelling "Guesses" JFS

First, I think your question, John, was posted under the wrong subject since it pertains to the mining of the White House, not the activities of A.C. Richards. However...

We can only GUESS at this, John, because we can't dig up George and ask him what he told the authorities. I am at home and do not have the statement in front of me (and am too lazy to google). If the word truly is KIRK, and not WHITE, I can GUESS only a few things: Whoever was taking down the statement could not understand George's accent and wrote KIRK, assuming that the Vice President was the target and he lived at the KIRKWOOD House. OR, the KIRKWOOD was the target for the explosives because Johnson lived there AND because Powell also had stayed there and could assist Harney?

That would make sense to me as to why George did not expect and did not want to have to shoot anyone personally?? He had thought all along that he was hired for the get-away, not for the immediate action.

If the word truly is KIRK, how have we missed it for all these years?

I got over my streak of laziness and googled the Atzerodt confession. The exact wording as to what was to be mined is "pres. House."

"Booth said he had met a party in N. York who would get the Prest. certain. They were going to mine the end of the pres. House, near the War Dept. They knew an entrance to accomplish it through. Spoke about getting friends of the Presdt. to get up an entertainment & they would mix it in, have a serenade & thus get at the Presdt. & party."

Back to square one...

[Pamela]

Stewart made his statement of April 15, 1865 to Judge Olin at the Peterson house in the hours after the murder of Lincoln. It's amazing to think that witnesses were giving their statements to authorities just feet away from the dying President. In that statement he admitted to encountering persons he believed were in the police corps at the theater door to the alleyway as those men were coming out. Actually his statement is a little confused at that point because he first mentioned "some person" and in the next sentence said "these persons". In his trial testimony he said, "When the assassin alighted on the stage, I believed I knew who it was that had committed the deed; that it was J. Wilkes Booth, and I so informed Richards, Superintendent of the Police, that night." His testimony contained no further information as to when or where he talked to Richards that night, but likely it was at the theater.

[wpbinzel]

(07-07-2016 02:38 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  I obtained a copy of the 1906 interview that a reporter for the Ravenna (Ohio) Republican did with Richards. In this version, when Richards arrives at the theater around 10, the stage is empty, as if for a scenery change, and Lincoln is shot by Richards' estimation "a few moments after 10." Peanuts John is an Italian, and Atzerodt's intended target is Secretary Stanton.

Richards appears to have abandoned his theory of two visits to the Surratt boardinghouse. He arrives with a squad, is greeted by Mary Surratt, instructs his men to search the house, and leaves two to guard the house after finding no trace of Booth. Weichmann doesn't turn up at police headquarters until Sunday.

Susan - do you have the 1906 Ravenna Republican interview in a form that you could post? It would be quite interesting to compare it to the one he gave in 1885. (For what it is worth, in 1906, Richards (1828-1912) would have been 78 versus 57 in 1885.)

This is an interesting thread; my compliments to all who have contributed. Someone once told me, "When doing research, if you begin to have more questions about the topic than when you started, you are doing it correctly."

[Susan Higginbotham]

This is very hard to follow, because the librarian who scanned it for me had to take multiple photographs of the same columns and some are probably out of order, but here's what I have:

[Pamela]

So, interesting about the knife. The park service believes they have the knife used in the attack, is that right? No CSI back then, but there was a knife found on Booth that could fit the bill, but was that the attack knife? If Booth dropped the knife during his escape he would have wanted a replacement so he could stab someone if he felt the need. I'm sure there are posters here who have all the information there is to be had on Booth's knives.

[Pamela]

I just read an informative and interesting discussion on the Lincoln-assassination forum about the knives. I might have missed it, but I don't recall a mention of a knife found on Herold. If no knife was found on him that doesn't make sense since he was a hunter and, of course a conspirator. If Herold didn't have a knife did Booth commandeer it from him and so was the bowie knife found on Booth really Herold's?
I've never thought about the knives before and might be totally ignorant, but the knife Richards had is intriguing.

[L Verge]

The best expert that I know on the weapons of the Lincoln assassination is Wesley Harris, a member of this forum and the author of an upcoming book on the subject. Wes, we need your expertise...

[wpbinzel]

Thank you, Susan, for sharing the article. I will try to decipher it a bit later, but it is greatly appreciated. (Do you have a more precise date for the article other than "1906"?) Thanks.

[Susan Higginbotham]

It's the April 19, 1906, edition.

The Hall Research Center has Gary Planck's booklet on A. R. Richards, but my understanding is that for copyright reasons, the entire booklet can't be copied for members who can't make it to the center in person. An alternative to the booklet, however, is Planck's article about Richards in the Winter 1980 Lincoln Herald. I think the booklet is an updated and expanded version of the article, but the article still has lots of information on Richards and discusses some of the issues that have been mentioned in this thread.

[Pamela]

Thanks, Susan, for posting the images of the article. Reading it is kind of like going through an archeological dig. It was amusing to see how Richard's original description that Mary "called out something I didn't understand, but I recognized the word, "Guerillas" became Mary was "heard to cry something about gorillas".

It's fascinating that Richards gave such a comprehensive and long narrative of events, including how he came to be appointed to his position, despite the factual errors in places. Some of his descriptions are informative, like this one when he returned to the theater and while Lincoln lay dying in the Peterson house "The large crowd in the street was full of suppressed excitement, but was perfectly orderly."
I wonder what became of the "horn handled dirk with a blade about 8 inches long"?

[Pamela]

All the testimony that I could find supports A.C. Richard's statement that Stewart invented his story about almost preventing Booth's escape from the theater. When commenting to Weichmann about the book chapters sent to him, Richards said, "No such scene as you describe as part of Stewart's testimony occurred there.The scene is apocryphal and imaginary. The gyrations Stewart describes as having participated in could not have taken place as there was no horse and rider then and there and in sight." In his statement in the Peterson house to Judge Olin, Stewart placed "two persons from the police corps" outside the stage door with him. Ferguson stated that he thought Grant might be in the theater, despite not seeing him enter the President's box, which validates Richard's observation that initially people thought that Grant was shot.

From The Evidence:
Peanuts: "He struck me with the button of a knife and knocked me down. He did this as he was mounting his horse, with one foot in the stirrup:he also kicked me and rode off immediately."

Mary Ann Turner: "After the assassination, I heard the horse going very rapidly down the alley. I ran immediately to my door and opened it, but he was gone. The crowd then came out, and this man, Ned, came out of the theater."

Mary Jane Anderson: " Then I saw Booth with something in his hand, glittering. He came out of the theater so quick that it seemed he but touched the horse, and it was gone like a flash of lightning. I thought to myself that the horse must surely have run off with the gentleman. Presently there was a rush out of the door, and I heard the people saying, "Which way did he go?"

[SSlater]

(07-10-2016 03:14 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  This is very hard to follow, because the librarian who scanned it for me had to take multiple photographs of the same columns and some are probably out of order, but here's what I have:

Susan. Thank you for "The Lincoln Tragedy". It is an important document for us to see. Unfortunately for them, it shows the incompetency of the Police Department under A. C. Richards.
"The Chief of Police went to Mary Surratt's house at 1 AM and "when she opened the door she was fully clothed." That bothered him. Did he expect pajamas, or less? Was he not aware that the whole town was up and about? The President was shot, Seward was stabbed, there were rumors that Grant, Stanton, and others had been killed, How could anyone sleep? (Did he frisk her?)
It might have been a better report if he had done it in 1865. As it is it became a dubious story by an egotist who missed the limelight. His version contradicts everything we have learned about that night.
If anyone is having trouble reading the report, as I did, I have typed the report and it is available to anyone. Contact me with an address on the portion of this site, that is set up for that reason. THANX!

[Pamela]

SSlater--Susan. Thank you for "The Lincoln Tragedy". It is an important document for us to see. Unfortunately for them, it shows the incompetency of the Police Department under A. C. Richards.
"The Chief of Police went to Mary Surratt's house at 1 AM and "when she opened the door she was fully clothed." That bothered him. Did he expect pajamas, or less? Was he not aware that the whole town was up and about? The President was shot, Seward was stabbed, there were rumors that Grant, Stanton, and others had been killed, How could anyone sleep? (Did he frisk her?)
It might have been a better report if he had done it in 1865. As it is it became a dubious story by an egotist who missed the limelight. His version contradicts everything we have learned about that night.
If anyone is having trouble reading the report, as I did, I have typed the report and it is available to anyone. Contact me with an address on the portion of this site, that is set up for that reason. THANX!--

Did he frisk her? You're joking, right? The whole town was not up and about as evidence shows, too much to get into. It doesn't help to add to our understanding of the events of the assassination to respond in hyperbole. We can add "egotist who missed the limelight" to the list of baseless insults piling up against A.C. Richards.

[L Verge]

"Thus ends the interesting, occasionally confusing, and somewhat contradictory story of A.C. Richards' alleged role in the Lincoln assassination. Here is a 'forgotten' investigator who seems to have wanted to be forgotten until the last several decades of his life. Richards probably knew more about the tragic event and its participants than he disclosed. The unearthed skeletons remain in the closet, and its key may well have been buried with this man, A.C. Richards, late of Eustis, Lake County, Florida."

And thus ends the 60+ pages of Gary Planck's 1993 expanded book on the Superintendent of the Metropolitan Police Department during the Lincoln assassination era. The Lincoln Assassination's Forgotten Investigator: A.C. Richards, published by Lincoln Memorial University in Harrogate, TN.

I just spent the better part of my afternoon reading this book (years ago, I had read the original article that appeared in the Lincoln Herald). Did I come to definite conclusions about Richards? Yes, his stories gave me a headache, and his direct quotes from 1865-1906 in messages to Stanton, Weichmann, et al. and interviews changed his stance on his involvement considerably over the years. His version of events do not mesh with statements made at the time by detectives in his own department (McDevitt, Clarvoe, Bigley, Kelly) as well as by Weichmann and also John Holohan. His changing of times as to when and where he was in the hours after the assassination makes one wonder also.

I am not convinced that he was at Ford's Theatre (he tells two different stories with at least an hour's difference between when he arrived); I continue to believe that he lied about being the first detective to visit Mrs. Surratt; and I remembered correctly that he caught heck from Stanton for allowing Weichmann and Holohan to go to Canada in search of John Surratt. The pair left for Baltimore on April 17 and Canada on April 18. They returned on April 29, and by that time, Stanton had already "severely reprimanded" Richards on April 25.

Considering that Mr. Planck has included many direct quotes and endnoted his work extensively (23 pages by chapters) and acknowledges dozens of well-respected scholars in the field, I'm not sure that we are compiling a list of baseless insults against Mr. Richards. Even Weichmann (who only corresponded with the former policeman from 1898 to 1901) chose not to use some of the reminiscences that Richards supplied in his letters.

I had forgotten that A.C. Richards was later brought up (1876-77) on charges of corruption based on prostitution and gambling in D.C. There was even a select committee in the House of Representatives formed to investigate. During the course of the investigation, Richards was suspended from duty. There seems to have been extenuating circumstances in trying to get a court date settled on, and the case was deferred for future investigation. Ultimately, Richards was exonerated because they could not prove that he received graft money.

However, he then resigned from the MPD and entered law school at the National University Law School (which merged with George Washington University in the 1950s). He practiced law in D.C. until 1893, before retiring to tend citrus trees in Florida.

[Pamela]

I need to read Planck's book, or pamphlet, and but my guess is that, I'll have different things to say about it and I'm not prone to headaches. I'm just prone to giving them, as you can tell.

No one has commented on the fact that all of the eyewitness accounts, from statements and testimony, of Booth's departure from the alley, confirm Richard's description and do not support Stewart's statement and testimony. In addition, in his statement to Judge Olin, Stewart admitted that persons from the "police corps" were with him at the door to the alley, having come from the theater. More validation that Richards was in the theater during the assassination.

I just read an account from a well respected historian, Swanson, and he recounted Stewart's version, ignoring eyewitness testimony to the contrary. As you know Richards advised Weichmann to do the same, since he had already written it, and because it didn't affect the guilt or innocence of anyone, and it was testimony in the trial that no one bothered to impeach because all the lawyers seemed to care about was the involvement of Spangler. It was a colorful tale, however imaginary, and caused no harm. But it does become important when considering Richards' presence at the assassination.

Of course you can believe Richards lied about his midnight visit to the Surratt house and that's all it is--a belief. I will keep an open mind. There were many members of the police force and I think all had been called to duty, and Richards could have been accompanied by many possible others. It was a crazy night.

Richards was one of many to feel Stanton's wrath. Burnett resigned because of Stanton's unfair anger at him and stayed on after Stanton apologized. I can see why Richards decided to get a law degree, following his legal troubles. He probably never wanted to be put in a vulnerable position again. And he didn't just "tend citrus trees" like a migrant worker, lol. He owned a citrus farm and was entrusted with the responsibility of managing another.