New Search - HELP

[Pamela]

(07-29-2016 12:11 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(07-29-2016 09:58 AM)Pamela Wrote:  Susan, the trial transcript bothered you, and the reason you gave is syntax.

Clarvoe:
A. He gave me his name as Weichmann. Said he: No sir, he is not in the city. Said I: His mother is in. Does she live here?

Susan Higginbotham:
Interesting, but given the strange syntax, I think he probably said, or meant to say, "His mother lives here. Is she in?"

Then you thought it helpful to compare McDevitt's testimony from the same trial, but in reality, it doesn't support your argument:

McDevitt:
"We asked for Mrs. Surratt, if she lived there;...."

Your syntax solution negates what both detectives said, which was questioning if Mary lived there, not stating it as a fact. The trial transcript is probably best left untampered with, because the changes you make reverse what both detectives said.

However, you might want to consider syntax problems in another portion of the transcript. Perhaps Lloyd, who was a drunk, misheard or misspoke the phrase, or the transcriber miswrote "shooting irons". Maybe Mary said "shining irons" or "ironing boards". What a difference that would have made!

I don't see the discrepancy myself if Clarvoe's syntax is corrected. The two detectives speak to Mrs. Holohan, who's looking out her window, and ask her if Mrs. Surratt lives there.

"A. I think after the bell was rung, a lady [Mrs. Holohan] put her head out of the second story window—that is the window over the parlor—and asked us who it was. We asked for Mrs. Surratt, if she lived there; she said, she did . . ."

Just after they receive their affirmative answer from Mrs. Holohan, Weichmann opens the door:

"we said, we wish to come in immediately; the door was then opened by Mr. Weichmann; he was dressed in his shirt sleeves . . ."

No need to ask Weichmann at that point if Mrs. Surratt lives there, since they just got that information from Mrs. Holohan, only if she is in. Hence my suggestion of "His mother lives here. Is she in?"

But if Richards had indeed been there before them, and had left a contingent of detectives guarding the place (as I think he says in one of his Weichmann letters), why would McDevitt and Clarvoe need to ask either question? They would know from Richards that Mary lived there, and they would know from their colleagues that she hadn't left the house.

It's not mere syntax, however, that makes me doubt Richards' story of meeting with Mary. First, as I mentioned earlier, I have the utmost difficulty believing that a competent chief of police investigating a presidential assassination would go to a house which the assassin was known to frequent, talk to a landlady who expressed no surprise at the assassination and who had plainly been waiting for someone, and leave without searching the place or interrogating any of the rest of the occupants, particularly the sleeping Weichmann and Mr. Holohan. (Contrast this with the visit by McDevitt et al, where the entire place was searched and everyone, including the servants and the young Holohan girl, was roused from his or her bed.) Second, I have even more difficulty believing that Richards would suppress such important evidence of Mary's guilt if he possessed it in 1865; I'm not convinced by the argument that he was trying to distance himself from the investigation. Third, assuming that Richards did give the government the information, I can think of no reason whatsoever why the government wouldn't make use of it at the conspiracy trial; the guilty verdict against Mary wasn't a foregone conclusion. And fourth, not a single person, not even Richards himself until 20 years after the fact, puts Richards at the boardinghouse. Certainly the most logical place for him to be would be at police headquarters, directing operations.

That's some kind of tortured logic.

OK, first Clarvoe didn't testify to any conversation with Mrs. Holahan, but McDevitt did. Mrs. Holahan didn't testify about a conversation with detectives and she wasn't asked in the trial. Whether the determination that Mrs. Surratt lived in the house came from Weichmann or Mrs. Holahan is minor. The question was asked and the answer was given, agreed by both detectives. And that was important since you can be at a house but not live there as Mary was at the tavern earlier but she didn't live there, and Mary lived at the boarding house in the afternoon but she wasn't in.

Second, you aren't correcting syntax, you are altering the court transcript to say the reverse of what it does say.

Trial of John Surratt, Volume 1, p.696
Clarvoe:
A. ...I asked him if John Surratt was in.
Q. Who was that man?
A. He gave me his name as Weichmann. Said he, "No, sir, he is not in the city." Said I, "His mother is in. Does she live here?

Clarvoe's statement, "His mother is in.", which is the critical statement, since it confirms that Clarvoe already had knowledge that Mary was in the house, is in response to the information he just got from Weichmann. It was a statement of fact almost as a retort to the statement that John wasn't in. Clarvoe didn't ask Weichmann if Mary was in the house. He told him.

Your judgement of Richards ' competency or what you believe his actions should have been or what evidence he "suppressed" or what you imagine the consequences would have been are your opinions and beside the point.

[Susan Higginbotham]

It shouldn't come as a surprise to you that people who study history do often form opinions. You certainly have yours, which I assume you don't regard as being beside the point. But sorry, that's another opinion.

Am I to understand, then, that everything Richards says should be taken uncritically and at face value? That's quite an honor to accord to him.

[L Verge]

I think we also need to remember that what we are taking as verbatim statements of what the people involved in this investigation and subsequent trial said are really transcriptions of what recorders thought they heard, interpreted, put on paper, and then transcribed (often late at night after the day had worn their brains to nubbins). No technology to help capture the exact statements.

For me, it would be torture akin to death to ask me to compare - word for word - what Pitman, Poore, and Peterson volumes left for posterity. I suspect that we would find a lot of differences, even omitted sections, within those three versions.

[Pamela]

Perhaps a disclaimer on the Surratt house site for Poore's would be helpful, attached to the transcripts with a wording similar to what you posted, Laurie. Whenever a researcher/historian disagrees with court transcripts, a syntax solution could be provided by someone like Susan, to change wording in a way more aligned with their own narrative.

[L Verge]

(07-30-2016 03:53 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Perhaps a disclaimer on the Surratt house site for Poore's would be helpful, attached to the transcripts with a wording similar to what you posted, Laurie. Whenever a researcher/historian disagrees with court transcripts, a syntax solution could be provided by someone like Susan, to change wording in a way more aligned with their own narrative.

Cut the sarcasm for once, please Pamela. I have been sitting here for two days debating on whether or not to challenge the two of you as to your proper or improper use of the word "syntax." In quite a few instances, I feel that you both are closer to discussing "semantics." Your sentence structure is okay; it is the meaning behind those sentence structures that tend to make me think more about semantics. However, as soon as we digress into English 102, that should close this thread down!

[Gene C]

(07-30-2016 05:23 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Cut the sarcasm for once, please Pamela. I have been sitting here for two days debating on whether or not to challenge the two of you as to your proper or improper use of the word "syntax."

Syntax - usually a tax on alcoholic beverages, but in NY includes large sugary drinks.

[Susan Higginbotham]

(07-30-2016 08:02 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I think we also need to remember that what we are taking as verbatim statements of what the people involved in this investigation and subsequent trial said are really transcriptions of what recorders thought they heard, interpreted, put on paper, and then transcribed (often late at night after the day had worn their brains to nubbins). No technology to help capture the exact statements.

For me, it would be torture akin to death to ask me to compare - word for word - what Pitman, Poore, and Peterson volumes left for posterity. I suspect that we would find a lot of differences, even omitted sections, within those three versions.

Excellent point. I do some Social Security disability appellate work, which entails looking at a lot of transcripts from hearings averaging about 30 minutes. For these, the court reporters are working off audio and/or video recordings, and they record the proceedings verbatim. With some of the claimants, particularly the poorly educated ones and the ones who ramble and go off onto tangents when asked the most straightforward of questions, one can only make an educated guess at their meaning. I wouldn't relish the task of trying to render their answers into standard English and removing the "noise" in order to make the proceedings intelligible, as did the court reporters at the trials we're dealing with.

[Pamela]

Unlike the electronically recorded, poorly educated, rambling , disabled people you reference, cops are professional witnesses who know the importance of being clear and concise, and thus are the easiest witnesses to record:
A. I went to her and said I, Mrs Surratt, I want to ask you a couple of questions and be very particular how you answer them, for there is a great deal depends upon them.--Detective Clarvoe, John Surratt trial.

[Gene C]

The "professionalism" of cops (and many other professions) in the 1860's was a far cry from what it is today.

Usually by the time of a trial the witnesses have been coached and know what to say, and what not to say. In a court room the full story is rarely told, only what each sides attorney's want told.

[Susan Higginbotham]

For an example of where the conspiracy trial transcription "tidies up" reality, read the testimony of Anna Surratt. We know from the newspaper accounts that she broke down on the stand, started demanding to know where her mother was, and finally had to be led out in a state of near-collapse. The transcript reflects none of this; the only clue that something is amiss is the point where Ewing suddenly breaks in and begins asking Anna very short, simple questions.

Appellate courts are well aware of the limitations of a transcript in capturing a witness's nuances and demeanor, and for that reason defer to trial courts in matters of witness credibility.

I'm not saying that the same thing happened with Clarvoe or that his testimony was deliberately altered. I'm simply pointing out that written transcriptions have their limitations, witnesses misspeak, and court reporters, being human, are capable of making mistakes, especially when reporting a long trial in the sweltering heat of 1865 Washington.

Bottom line, however, is that you choose to give credence to Richards's recollections. I regard them with considerably more skepticism. You haven't convinced me to believe otherwise, and I'm not going to convince you to believe otherwise, so I suggest we drop what others are surely finding a tedious topic.

[Pamela]

You seem to have missed my point, Gene. The very detective whose testimony Susan re-worded to turn a statement into a question, said to Mary Surratt to be careful about her choice of words because "a great deal depends on them". Clarvoe related the caution he gave to Mary as part of the testimony we're discussing. So, if he knew how important "be very particular how you answer them (his questions)" her words were, he knew how important his words were. I didn't notice him rambling and going off on tangents as a witness, making his words hard to decipher because that didn't happen, however Susan might wish it were so.

Gene, I basically agree with what you said.

[Gene C]

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding Pamela.

This is an interesting discussion, with excellent information from all sides.

[L Verge]

(07-31-2016 12:02 AM)Pamela Wrote:  Unlike the electronically recorded, poorly educated, rambling , disabled people you reference, cops are professional witnesses who know the importance of being clear and concise, and thus are the easiest witnesses to record:
A. I went to her and said I, Mrs Surratt, I want to ask you a couple of questions and be very particular how you answer them, for there is a great deal depends upon them.--Detective Clarvoe, John Surratt trial.

"Unlike the electronically recorded, poorly educated, rambling , disabled people you reference, cops are professional witnesses who know the importance of being clear and concise, and thus are the easiest witnesses to record:"

Prove that opinion if speaking in 1865 terms, when the MPD consisted of quite a few misfits who joined after the Army and the drafts had taken their good share of good men. Take into consideration regional and ethnic dialects among the force. John Loyd was once an MPD officer. Your generalization here does not hold water with me and probably others who know social history.

Also, read the transcripts and see how the lawyers on both sides confused the issues by jumping back and forth and changing subjects frequently. Without the benefit of modern technology, anyone trying to accurately keep up with the dialogue must have had a very difficult time.

---

(07-31-2016 07:49 AM)Pamela Wrote:  You seem to have missed my point, Gene. The very detective whose testimony Susan re-worded to turn a statement into a question, said to Mary Surratt to be careful about her choice of words because "a great deal depends on them". Clarvoe related the caution he gave to Mary as part of the testimony we're discussing. So, if he knew how important "be very particular how you answer them (his questions)" her words were, he knew how important his words were. I didn't notice him rambling and going off on tangents as a witness, making his words hard to decipher because that didn't happen, however Susan might wish it were so.

Gene, I basically agree with what you said.

Much like the lawyers in 1865, Pamela, your points seem to change on a minute's notice in order to reflect away from some of your original statements. Therefore, it becomes difficult to understand what your point(s) are.

And here, I am going to interject a "point" that I cannot and don't have the time to prove or disprove - and may be non-provable. For several years, I have had discussions with Civil War enthusiasts within a certain local family. This family has roots in the Surratt region (southern Prince George's County, Maryland) going back to the 1700s. I have known members of the family my entire life, but have only recently discussed Civil War history with them.

One of their descendants is well-known to those of us with an interest in the Confederate underground and the general espionage work of the Confederates. His name is E. Pliny Bryan, and he grew up on a plantation within a half-mile of Surratt House. The ruins of Bryan Hall are still in the woods near one of our regional parks and nature centers today. As an adult before the war, Pliny served in the Maryland legislature. He also owned a farm on the Potomac River; it is now the NPS National Colonial Farm, which overlooks Mount Vernon on the opposite shore. He died in Charleston while doing service for the CSA.

Because of their family research and lore, they mentioned to me that Detective Clarvoe had been a resident of another local village - Piscataway, Maryland, a known hot-bed of secessionist activity. Thomas Harbin was also a resident there and was friends with Clarvoe. The Bryan/Miller family believe that Clarvoe may have been a mole for the Confederacy while working with the Union-controlled police force in D.C. If they are correct (and I cannot attest to it either way), that may explain his careful coaching of Mrs. Surratt to "be careful of your choice of words." It could be seen as a friend's warning to watch your syntax because it could do you in.

[Pamela]

(07-31-2016 07:31 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  For an example of where the conspiracy trial transcription "tidies up" reality, read the testimony of Anna Surratt. We know from the newspaper accounts that she broke down on the stand, started demanding to know where her mother was, and finally had to be led out in a state of near-collapse. The transcript reflects none of this; the only clue that something is amiss is the point where Ewing suddenly breaks in and begins asking Anna very short, simple questions.

Appellate courts are well aware of the limitations of a transcript in capturing a witness's nuances and demeanor, and for that reason defer to trial courts in matters of witness credibility.

I'm not saying that the same thing happened with Clarvoe or that his testimony was deliberately altered. I'm simply pointing out that written transcriptions have their limitations, witnesses misspeak, and court reporters, being human, are capable of making mistakes, especially when reporting a long trial in the sweltering heat of 1865 Washington.

Bottom line, however, is that you choose to give credence to Richards's recollections. I regard them with considerably more skepticism. You haven't convinced me to believe otherwise, and I'm not going to convince you to believe otherwise, so I suggest we drop what others are surely finding a tedious topic.

Susan, I' m not trying to convince you of anything. I don't care about your beliefs and you don't care about mine, and it's not the issue. I began posting on this thread in response to remarks about A.C. Richards who I do care about, in that I think his role in the assassination is interesting and should be looked at fairly. Skepticism is fair. Cooking the books isn't.

I am impressed at the lengths you will go to negate Clarvoe's testimony, now Anna Surratt is thrown into the mix, lol. It must really bother you. Yes, everyone misspeaks, suffers from heat, makes mistakes, gets headaches, stomach aches, family problems, anything and everything that affects the human condition, and all these things can affect transcriptions, people writing letters, reporters, everything and everyone doing anything at all. Apply your rational to every last word of the entire transcript, every letter you find and news article you can find. And factor in time, of course. To be fair. Otherwise it just looks like you disagree with Clarvoe's statement and want to change it to say what you want.

[Susan Higginbotham]

(07-31-2016 11:04 PM)Pamela Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 07:31 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  For an example of where the conspiracy trial transcription "tidies up" reality, read the testimony of Anna Surratt. We know from the newspaper accounts that she broke down on the stand, started demanding to know where her mother was, and finally had to be led out in a state of near-collapse. The transcript reflects none of this; the only clue that something is amiss is the point where Ewing suddenly breaks in and begins asking Anna very short, simple questions.

Appellate courts are well aware of the limitations of a transcript in capturing a witness's nuances and demeanor, and for that reason defer to trial courts in matters of witness credibility.

I'm not saying that the same thing happened with Clarvoe or that his testimony was deliberately altered. I'm simply pointing out that written transcriptions have their limitations, witnesses misspeak, and court reporters, being human, are capable of making mistakes, especially when reporting a long trial in the sweltering heat of 1865 Washington.

Bottom line, however, is that you choose to give credence to Richards's recollections. I regard them with considerably more skepticism. You haven't convinced me to believe otherwise, and I'm not going to convince you to believe otherwise, so I suggest we drop what others are surely finding a tedious topic.

Susan, I' m not trying to convince you of anything. I don't care about your beliefs and you don't care about mine, and it's not the issue. I began posting on this thread in response to remarks about A.C. Richards who I do care about, in that I think his role in the assassination is interesting and should be looked at fairly. Skepticism is fair. Cooking the books isn't.

I am impressed at the lengths you will go to negate Clarvoe's testimony, now Anna Surratt is thrown into the mix, lol. It must really bother you. Yes, everyone misspeaks, suffers from heat, makes mistakes, gets headaches, stomach aches, family problems, anything and everything that affects the human condition, and all these things can affect transcriptions, people writing letters, reporters, everything and everyone doing anything at all. Apply your rational to every last word of the entire transcript, every letter you find and news article you can find. And factor in time, of course. To be fair. Otherwise it just looks like you disagree with Clarvoe's statement and want to change it to say what you want.

"lol, it must really bother you." No, it doesn't bother me; I was simply offering up an example.

The personal tone you keep taking here doesn't add any weight to your arguments, but while we're LOL-ing, I recall you going to some impressive lengths to explain away Richards' misstatement that the stage was entirely empty when Lincoln was shot, including accusing me of misquoting him. When I pointed out that I had taken the quote from the original newspaper article and that "We Saw Lincoln Shot" contained a typo, you didn't, of course, have the courtesy to acknowledge your mistake with regard to me, but responded with, "Again, Richards knew there was one actor on the stage when the shot was fired. The entire country knew it and probably half of the world. As you know, reporters can misquote and make mistakes." (see posts 30-32). So evidently you're willing to allow for human error when it suits you.

But leaving this aside, even if Clarvoe did say that "his mother is in," why assume he learned this from Richards? And if he had learned this from Richards, wouldn't he have also learned from Richards that Mary lived at her boardinghouse?