Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Pamela · 08-01-2016, 10:18 PM

In answer to your last question, I find it very hard to imagine what it was like in police headquarters on that night. Maybe, in a single word-intense. In his letters to Weichmann, Richards deduced that there were 2 separate visits by police, the first of which Weichmann was unaware. In a later letter he said he had begun to recollect that McDevitt told him that he had seen Weichmann and that Weichmann would be coming in the next day. There is no proof as to how Clarvoe knew Mary was in, but if he heard the earlier visit mentioned at headquarters, he could have acted to do a more agressive visit based on incomplete information.

I was guessing about the stage issue before I found Richards' testimony in the John Surratt trial that he didn't follow the conspiracy trial or read any of the testimony. I'll take another guess that Richards had not been in the theater very long before the assassination and wasn' t following the play. Maybe he noticed Parker in the audience instead of doing his job. In any case, within seconds of the shot, Booth was on the stage and Hawk had run off, leaving the stage free of actors other than the killer.

There are many reasons to believe that Richards was in the theater, many of which John Fazio posted on the New search-HELP thread started by SSlater.

I re-read the three testimonies of Stewart. He never mentioned in court of being deposed by Judge Olin in the Peterson house on April 15. To Olin he mentioned two persons who he believed were in the "police corps", coming out of the theater door into the alley.

In the conspiracy trial he said (Volume 2, p.81) that night he went to police headquarters and "...gave my name, and the information I had, to Superintendent Richards, of the police, and upon his question , said to him that I believed I knew who it was that had committed the deed, that I believed it was Booth, and he said he believed so, too."

In the trial of John Surratt, Stewart said this (Volume 2, p.985): A. ..in compliance with a promise I had made to some police officers, I then walked down to the police headquarters....I remained in the neighborhood of the police office until the gentleman in charge there said I need not remain there any longer; that he would take my statement the next day."

Quite a lot of variations for a witness who testified in great detail about atmospheric conditions and the effects of moonlight and gaslight on Booth, pedestrians, buildings, etc. Also, Richards wrote to Weichmann that "I knew him and he knew me" and that if Stewart recognized Booth, he didn't share that information with him. Stewart had an enormous capacity to recall the details of moonlight, atmospheric haze and horse gyrations, but he was oddly inconsistent regarding police and Richards.

Speaking of courtesy, how gracious was it of you to respond to my discovery of Clarvoe's statement by re-writing court transcript to change what he said and create an entirely different meaning? And I always allow for human error, who doesn't?

RJNorton · 08-02-2016, 04:40 AM

(08-01-2016 10:18 PM)Pamela Wrote: Maybe he noticed Parker in the audience instead of doing his job.

This is why I questioned why the records of Parker's trial before the police board mysteriously disappeared (if there were a trial) and the case dismissed. My own scenario, hopefully not too far out, is that Richards wasn't really in the theater and therefore realized he would not be able to testify in detail about Parker's negligence. Richards worried questions could arise during the hearing that he could not answer (because he really wasn't at the theater). The President of the United States is shot and killed, and one officer is obviously negligent in his duty, and the Superintendent of Police is (allegedly) an eyewitness to the officer's neglect of duty. Yet the case is dismissed and all records disappear! I cannot prove my scenario, but I am just saying what came into my mind regarding why Parker was let off the hook. Could Richards have backed out from testifying? Can anyone prove my scenario is definitely false? Is it at least possible?

Eva Elisabeth · 08-02-2016, 05:40 AM

I cannot prove it's wrong nor right (and think no one will be able to), but I think it well possible, Roger.

RJNorton · 08-02-2016, 05:43 AM

Thanks, Eva. I know it cannot be proved, but I sure find it suspicious that Parker's case was dismissed. Something here smells.

Susan Higginbotham · 08-02-2016, 07:52 AM

(08-02-2016 05:43 AM)RJNorton Wrote: Thanks, Eva. I know it cannot be proved, but I sure find it suspicious that Parker's case was dismissed. Something here smells.

Don't some authors accuse Mary Lincoln of having protected him, or am I dreaming that? I find it very improbable that she would.

Pamela · 08-02-2016, 08:15 AM

Elizabeth Keckley, in her book, described a scene where Mary Lincoln chewed Parker out and accused him of murdering her husband. He was back on White House detail. She had signed his draft papers so he could stay out of the war and there is a possibility that they were related because her mother's name was Parker. John Fazio has an interesting chapter on Parker.

L Verge · 08-02-2016, 12:44 PM

Both James O. Hall and Michael Kauffman have addressed this issue fully over the years. I am up to my earlobes at work doing annual reports, etc., but please consult their work to see if it differs in any way from John's. I suspect that the research of those two men was primary in the research that John did. I do know that, when John Fazio first approached me, he was on the same page as Tidwell et al and Come Retribution.

Now, let's set the record straight. As far as Joan Chaconas, my staff historian, and I have been able to find out, those Parker papers (at least some of them) remained in the MPD files into the 20th century. Whether or not they were easy to find - or if anyone searched for them - we do not know.

Both Joan and I joined the Surratt Society in 1975. A few years after that, a friend of my mother sent me a few pieces of Xeroxed files from the case that her deceased husband had received from a colleague. Those pages should be in the Parker files of Mr. Hall at our James O. Hall Research Center. About the same time, Joan met an officer from MPD, who also had part of the files and allowed her to copy them.

As I mentioned much earlier on this forum, about 5-6 years ago, I worked with the now-retired historian for MPD. He told me that the story that continues to make the rounds is that the Parker files were thrown in the trash sometime in the mid-1900s and that an officer retrieved them. That officer is the one who shared his find, but never returned them to MPD since they had been deemed worthy of the trash. I suspect that this officer is the one from whom the pages that both Joan and I saw came. I also suspect that he is deceased by this time.

I continue to support Kauffman's theory that Parker was not assigned to stay with the presidential party - only to get them safely to and from the theater over the streets of the city. Mike also used to explain that other guards may have taken delight in accusing Parker. Unless descendants of the officer who rescued the Parker papers from the circular file come to realize the treasure they have, we may never know the exact wording of the entire police hearing. I suggest we stop speculating.

Pamela · 08-02-2016, 11:51 PM

Thanks for that information , Laurie. So, Richards didn't destroy Parker's files, as Roger theorized, to cover the "fact" that he didn't witness the assassination. Neither did Richards have a "revelation" 20 or 30 years later that he was in Ford's. He was on the record at the time. Stewart could not tell a consistent story about Richards. In one trial he went to the police station and talked to Richards right after the assassination. In another trial he waited outside the offices until he was told by an officer to come back the next day. Stewart lied about Richards like he lied about almost catching Booth.

L Verge · 08-03-2016, 08:45 AM

(08-02-2016 11:51 PM)Pamela Wrote: Thanks for that information , Laurie. So, Richards didn't destroy Parker's files, as Roger theorized, to cover the "fact" that he didn't witness the assassination. Neither did Richards have a "revelation" 20 or 30 years later that he was in Ford's. He was on the record at the time. Stewart could not tell a consistent story about Richards. In one trial he went to the police station and talked to Richards right after the assassination. In another trial he waited outside the offices until he was told by an officer to come back the next day. Stewart lied about Richards like he lied about almost catching Booth.

I can only speak for what I saw forty years ago on a few Xeroxed pages that appeared to be from the Parker files. Until I see a full copy (or miraculously, the original), I'm not ruling anything out.

As for the rest of your statement here, you are taking mighty leaps based on a very little bit of information that I provided as to the existence of the files - not what was in them. You are falling into the same pit that many of us have in the past -- making snap judgments without sufficient evidence to back them up.

I'm going to ask a question here that I hope won't insult you, but would you be so interested in Richards if he was not in "cahoots" with the Weichmann story?

RJNorton · 08-03-2016, 09:48 AM

(08-02-2016 11:51 PM)Pamela Wrote: So, Richards didn't destroy Parker's files, as Roger theorized, to cover the "fact" that he didn't witness the assassination.

If I said this I did not mean it the way you say. I thought I meant to say that perhaps the case was thrown out because Richards would not testify against Parker. I didn't mean to say Richards destroyed the files.

As I have said previously on the forum I agree with John Fazio and A.C. Richards - IMO Parker was negligent. IMO Parker's duties included protecting the President inside the theater. I disagree with Mike Kauffman on this point.

I believe Parker blew off his assignment. The Ford's doorkeeper, John Buckingham, said that a chair had been placed in the passageway behind the State Box for Parker to sit in (according to Crook). Parker was not in it.

L Verge · 08-03-2016, 11:45 AM

Just a side response to the fact that Mrs. Lincoln saved Parker from the draft: I don't think that instituted any friendship between the two. The prime duty of the White House guards (of which he was one) was to protect the interior furnishings from the constant theft, vandalism, souvenir snipping, etc. Mrs. Lincoln had spent a lot of money on much of those furnishings and wanted them protected.

RJNorton · 08-03-2016, 03:47 PM

(08-03-2016 11:45 AM)L Verge Wrote: Just a side response to the fact that Mrs. Lincoln saved Parker from the draft: I don't think that instituted any friendship between the two. The prime duty of the White House guards (of which he was one) was to protect the interior furnishings from the constant theft, vandalism, souvenir snipping, etc. Mrs. Lincoln had spent a lot of money on much of those furnishings and wanted them protected.

According to Mr. James O. Hall Presidential protection was important, too.

Mr. Hall writes:

"Ward Hill Lamon, United States Marshall for the District of Columbia and a close friend of President Lincoln, had become increasingly fearful for the President's life. In October of 1864 he asked Superintendent Webb (who preceded A.C. Richards) to furnish a detail of police officers to be stationed at the White House."

Mr. Hall goes on to say that these officers reported to Lamon himself at the White House, and that Parker was not part of the original detail but became a member in March 1865.

Mr. Hall also mentions that on March 22, 1865, Superintendent A.C. Richards prepared a list of his officers who could not provide draft subsitutes. Two of the men named were White House officers: Joseph Shelton and John F. Parker.

I read somewhere, and I forget where, that Mary Lincoln (in addition to the note she wrote for Parker) wrote a note for Shelton as well (saving him from the draft, also).

Susan Higginbotham · (This post was last modified: 08-03-2016 04:41 PM by Susan Higginbotham.)

(08-03-2016 03:47 PM)RJNorton Wrote:
(08-03-2016 11:45 AM)L Verge Wrote: Just a side response to the fact that Mrs. Lincoln saved Parker from the draft: I don't think that instituted any friendship between the two. The prime duty of the White House guards (of which he was one) was to protect the interior furnishings from the constant theft, vandalism, souvenir snipping, etc. Mrs. Lincoln had spent a lot of money on much of those furnishings and wanted them protected.

According to Mr. James O. Hall Presidential protection was important, too.

Mr. Hall writes:

"Ward Hill Lamon, United States Marshall for the District of Columbia and a close friend of President Lincoln, had become increasingly fearful for the President's life. In October of 1864 he asked Superintendent Webb (who preceded A.C. Richards) to furnish a detail of police officers to be stationed at the White House."

Mr. Hall goes on to say that these officers reported to Lamon himself at the White House, and that Parker was not part of the original detail but became a member in March 1865.

Mr. Hall also mentions that on March 22, 1865, Superintendent A.C. Richards prepared a list of his officers who could not provide draft subsitutes. Two of the men named were White House officers: Joseph Shelton and John F. Parker.

I read somewhere, and I forget where, that Mary Lincoln (in addition to the note she wrote for Parker) wrote a note for Shelton as well (saving him from the draft, also).

Turner and Turner have a certification from Mary "that Joseph Sheldon a member of the Metropolitan Police has been detailed for duty at the Executive Mansion by order of Mrs. Lincoln" dated April 3, 1865. It's identical to Parker's, issued on the same date, except for the name.

Pamela · 08-03-2016, 04:43 PM

(08-03-2016 08:45 AM)L Verge Wrote:
(08-02-2016 11:51 PM)Pamela Wrote: Thanks for that information , Laurie. So, Richards didn't destroy Parker's files, as Roger theorized, to cover the "fact" that he didn't witness the assassination. Neither did Richards have a "revelation" 20 or 30 years later that he was in Ford's. He was on the record at the time. Stewart could not tell a consistent story about Richards. In one trial he went to the police station and talked to Richards right after the assassination. In another trial he waited outside the offices until he was told by an officer to come back the next day. Stewart lied about Richards like he lied about almost catching Booth.

I can only speak for what I saw forty years ago on a few Xeroxed pages that appeared to be from the Parker files. Until I see a full copy (or miraculously, the original), I'm not ruling anything out.

As for the rest of your statement here, you are taking mighty leaps based on a very little bit of information that I provided as to the existence of the files - not what was in them. You are falling into the same pit that many of us have in the past -- making snap judgments without sufficient evidence to back them up.

I'm going to ask a question here that I hope won't insult you, but would you be so interested in Richards if he was not in "cahoots" with the Weichmann story?

Can you explain your "cahoots" question? I know what the word means.

L Verge · 08-03-2016, 04:44 PM

Page 393 in American Brutus: Mike Kauffman says that Mrs. Lincoln first blamed Forbes for allowing Booth into the Presidential Box (and he should have been the one blamed). To deflect the blame, Mike says that Forbes filed charges against Parker for leaving his post to have a drink. Parker was tried and acquitted. He also says that testimony at the hearing was not recorded. Did both Richards and Forbes file charges?

Right now, I have in front of me the photocopy of the charge and specifications filed against Patrolman John F. Parker of the 5th Precinct on May 1, 1865. Strangely Richards not only filed the charges and specifications with the Secretary of the Board of Metropolitan Police - T.A. Lazenby - he signed as his own witness along with Charles Forbes. Parker acknowledged receipt of the document the same day.

To add to the confusion, Joan Chaconas showed me a copy of a list of items "received of the Metropolitan Police Department, D.C. the personnel record of John F. Parker consisting of the following listed items, in folder." 29 items are listed, most of them related to incidents in 1863-64, one in Nov. of 65, and several in 1868. Number one on the list is "Specifications, Neglect of duty, allowed man to shoot President Lincoln, 5-1-65." At the bottom, it reads, "Received the above for Campbell's Photo Service, 917 F Street, N.W. for Photostat purposes to be returned immediately. The items were sent on May 28, 1940, and "File returned in good order 5-29-40" with initials. Frank Dodson is listed as the messenger who carried the files to Campbell's and back to the MPD.

Attached to that sheet is the previously mentioned charge and specification against Parker, but nothing pertaining to a transcript of any sort from a police board hearing. Could Mike be correct that no written record was made? Are the Parker papers that were supposedly retrieved from the trash really this personnel file with only the 29 pieces mentioned on the transit paper to the photographer?

One of the absolute best parts of American Brutus is the detailed chapter notes at the end of the text. On page 403 and page 475, Mike makes further statements favoring Parker and debunking Richards. He cites Parker's record as being in the office of the D.C. Corporation Counsel in D.C. (??), also says that Crook and Pendel were unreliable sources, and that coachman Francis Burke had drinks with the uniformed officer that was paid by the Fords to stand in front of the theater for security purposes - not Parker. He finally states that the debunking process of these statements would be very tedious and could make up an entire volume.

Personally, I consider Hall and Kauffman the best researchers in the field to date. The rest of us pale in comparison. That's what I will go with.