Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Pamela · 07-20-2015, 09:14 PM

Maybe a lawyer could weigh in here, but I think Mary's lawyer had an ethical responsibility to be truthful about what he knew to be a fact. Hartmanft also denied Mary was shackled.

BettyO · 07-21-2015, 07:56 AM

According to most reports from reputable sources, neither Mary nor Mudd were shackled.... why Spangler reported such, I don't know unless the recollections were from faulty memory -

Pamela · 07-21-2015, 11:18 AM

(07-21-2015 07:56 AM)BettyO Wrote: According to most reports from reputable sources, neither Mary nor Mudd were shackled.... why Spangler reported such, I don't know unless the recollections were from faulty memory -

Spangler was probably not a conspirator, so he had an ax to grind and what he said about Weichmann was consistent with the story pushed by the defense. I wouldn't excuse his inaccurracies given to a newspaper reporter as a faulty memory because he offered too much detail. "The seat (in court) was 12 inches high and the chains between the irons on her feet were so short that she always had to be assisted to her seat." I think he he just lied.

Susan Higginbotham · 07-21-2015, 12:25 PM

(07-21-2015 11:18 AM)Pamela Wrote:
(07-21-2015 07:56 AM)BettyO Wrote: According to most reports from reputable sources, neither Mary nor Mudd were shackled.... why Spangler reported such, I don't know unless the recollections were from faulty memory -

Spangler was probably not a conspirator, so he had an ax to grind and what he said about Weichmann was consistent with the story pushed by the defense. I wouldn't excuse his inaccurracies given to a newspaper reporter as a faulty memory because he offered too much detail. "The seat (in court) was 12 inches high and the chains between the irons on her feet were so short that she always had to be assisted to her seat." I think he he just lied.

General Hartranft reported on June 18, 1865, that Spangler's mind was wandering, so I wouldn't be surprised if his memory was faulty regarding Mary's shackles.

Pamela · (This post was last modified: 07-21-2015 01:24 PM by Pamela.)

Confabulation (verb: confabulate) is a memory disturbance, defined as the production of fabricated, distorted or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world, without the conscious intention to deceive.[1] Confabulation is distinguished from lying as there is no intent to deceive and the person is unaware the information is false.[2] Although individuals can present blatantly false information, confabulation can also seem to be coherent, internally consistent, and relatively normal.[2] Individuals who confabulate present incorrect memories ranging from "subtle alterations to bizarre fabrications",[3] and are generally very confident about their recollections, despite contradictory evidence.[4] Most known cases of confabulation are symptomatic of brain damage or dementias, such as aneurysm, Alzheimer's disease, or Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome (a common manifestation of thiamine deficiency caused by alcoholism.)

Maybe he was a confabulator. They didn't exactly have B complex vitamins for the prisoners on the Dry Tortugas and I believe he was a heavy drinker before the trial. He was a confabulator in regards to Weichmann, too, since Atzerodt never incriminated him in any of his many confessions.

SSlater · 07-23-2015, 12:22 AM

(07-20-2015 09:14 PM)Pamela Wrote: Maybe a lawyer could weigh in here, but I think Mary's lawyer had an ethical responsibility to be truthful about what he knew to be a fact. Hartmanft also denied Mary was shackled.

Pamela. I'm not a lawyer, but from my experience as an Expert Witness, the lawyer would be truthful, but he would lead the testimony away from the topic, if the truth would hurt his client.
(that's why we hire Lawyers.)

HerbS · 07-23-2015, 08:07 AM

I have a law background and I agree with SSlater about his opinion on the responsibility of his lawyer!

Pamela · 07-23-2015, 11:10 AM

I found Aiken's statement in Weichmann and he stopped short of saying she was never manacled, although it was implied. Hartranft absolutely denied she was ever manacled, in a letter to Holt written in 1873, also in Weichmann. Holt submitted Hartranft's letter for publication in response to false stories being spread by John T. Ford and others. P 293-294 : Aiken, "...at no time during her unlawful trial was Mrs. Surratt manacled, either on her wrists or her ankles, while in the presence of the Court. I not only speak from my own absolute knowledge, but from recollection of Mrs. Surratt's oft-repeated statements to me that she was not manacled."

It was implied because he included her "oft-repeated statements" to him and she wouldn't have to tell him about what he could see for himself in court. That's what makes logical sense to me.

Hartranft, "Dear Sir: My attention having been directed to a letter dated Washington, August 29, 1873, and signed "Truth," that appeared in the New York Tribune a few days since, I think it proper, in justice to you, to declare publicly that it's statements as far as they relate to occurrances within my own observation, are absolute falsehoods.

As Marshall of the Court before whom the conspirators were tried, I had charge of Mrs. Surratt before, during and after the time of her trial, in all a period of about two months; during which she never had a manacle or manacles on either hands or feet; and the thought of manacling her was not, to my knowledge, ever entertained by anyone in authority...."

It was John Ford who wrote "Truth".

Pamela · (This post was last modified: 07-23-2015 06:58 PM by Pamela.)

(07-17-2015 07:40 AM)BettyO Wrote: Found this interesting article RE: Weichmann as recalled by Spangler in my files -

Washington Critical Record, June 25, 1869

If this be true, it's interesting to see Spangler's take on the other boys' (Powell, Herold, Atzerodt) opinion regarding Mrs. Surratt. Herold supposedly stated, "That old lady (meaning 43 year old Mrs Surratt - HA!) is as deep in as the rest of us!" Even chivalrous Lew Powell stated that Mrs. Surratt might not have known of the murder, but possibly knew of the kidnapping plot.

Aside from John Surratt, I personally don't think that any of the original crew had any use for Lou Weichmann, other than to find him a wheedling snoop.

Is that the exact name of the newspaper? I noticed that the statements attributed to Spangler sounded too educated to be his words. Don't you agree? What do you base "wheedling snoop" on? Are you projecting your own bias? But I agree that those losers had no use for him. He didn't offer them bags of money. Also, do you think beating a woman to be chivalrous?

BettyO · (This post was last modified: 07-24-2015 05:49 AM by BettyO.)

Quote:Is that the exact name of the newspaper? I noticed that the statements attributed to Spangler sounded too educated to be his words. Don't you agree? What do you base "wheedling snoop" on? Are you projecting your own bias? But I agree that those losers had no use for him. He didn't offer them bags of money. Also, do you think beating a woman to be chivalrous?

Pamela -

That is the exact name of the newspaper. I agree that the statements attributed to Spangler sound far too educated. I have seen Spangler's letters and he didn't have much of an education. I perhaps used a bad choice of words. Most folk seem to feel that Weichmann was more or less one who wanted to join the group of conspirators, but because he could not ride a horse or shoot a gun, the other boys ignored him.

As far as Powell beating Annie Ward; you must remember that in the Victorian era, servants were not thought of in the same manner as a "lady" would be nowdays. We've gone over this subject on the board once before. Yes, his actions were strong and uncalled for. The fact that she more or less knew of his relations with Mary Branson (and probably threatened to tell her parents) infuriated him beyond control. He had a hot temper and it got him into trouble.

HerbS · 07-24-2015, 07:49 AM

I feel that Weichmann sang like a bird and blew with the wind to protect himself!Thus,he had some intellegence in his brain.He was dumb like a fox!

BettyO · 07-24-2015, 08:20 AM

Yes, he was a sly one. Davey Herold was another. There was nothing dumb about that boy! He was pretty slick; as was Powell. They all knew how to evade certain questions.

HerbS · 07-24-2015, 09:29 AM

Thanks BettyO-Once again your affermation of my thoughts about the Conspirators make me feel good!

Pamela · 07-24-2015, 10:27 AM

(07-24-2015 05:48 AM)BettyO Wrote:
Quote:Is that the exact name of the newspaper? I noticed that the statements attributed to Spangler sounded too educated to be his words. Don't you agree? What do you base "wheedling snoop" on? Are you projecting your own bias? But I agree that those losers had no use for him. He didn't offer them bags of money. Also, do you think beating a woman to be chivalrous?

Pamela -

That is the exact name of the newspaper. I agree that the statements attributed to Spangler sound far too educated. I have seen Spangler's letters and he didn't have much of an education. I perhaps used a bad choice of words. Most folk seem to feel that Weichmann was more or less one who wanted to join the group of conspirators, but because he could not ride a horse or shoot a gun, the other boys ignored him.

As far as Powell beating Annie Ward; you must remember that in the Victorian era, servants were not thought of in the same manner as a "lady" would be nowdays. We've gone over this subject on the board once before. Yes, his actions were strong and uncalled for. The fact that she more or less knew of his relations with Mary Branson (and probably threatened to tell her parents) infuriated him beyond control. He had a hot temper and it got him into trouble.

Annie Ward? So two Annie Wards in this story, interesting. I thought he beat the woman up because she was black and he was a white supremacist and felt entitled to do so. Do you think he would have beaten her up if she was a white servant? I wonder what the police report said--that his actions were "strong and uncalled for"? And he viciously and murderously attacked an unarmed, bedridden man three times his age and attempted to kill anyone who got in his way. How in the world can you call Powell chivalrous?

HerbS, why wouldn't Weichmann protect himself? And why wouldn't he want justice for Lincoln and Seward, for Seward's family and for the nation? The Surratts recklessly, intentionally and without conscience put him in highly suspicious situations.

Because John Surratt, in a lecture riddled with self serving lies, said that Weichmann wanted to join the conspiracy--"most folk" believe him? No, there's more, right? The dot dot dot story. Weichmann knew more than he let on....

BettyO · (This post was last modified: 07-24-2015 11:15 AM by BettyO.)

Quote:Annie Ward? So two Annie Wards in this story, interesting. I thought he beat the woman up because she was black and he was a white supremacist and felt entitled to do so. Do you think he would have beaten her up if she was a white servant? I wonder what the police report said--that his actions were "strong and uncalled for"? And he viciously and murderously attacked an unarmed, bedridden man three times his age and attempted to kill anyone who got in his way. How in the world can you call Powell chivalrous?

The African American servant who worked for the Bransons was named Annie Ward. I have a copy of her subpoena for the trial, but she was never called. Yes, it is odd that there were two "Annie Wards" in this story.....

Why is it that everyone in the 19th Century is termed a "white supremacist" if they re southern? Again - it boils down to attempting to look at the 19th century with a 21st century mindset - and all that it entails. The 19th Century was different; different values; different mindsets. People thought (and acted) differently. In order to understand these folk (and ANY Victorian people) you must attempt to see things through their eyes. Many northerners would be perceived today as "racist" too. Powell was apparently (as he told his spiritual advisor the night before he was executed) very repentant regarding what he did to the Seward family; he saw that he was dead-wrong; that he thought at first that it would bring down a government (and heads of government) who were harsh to "his people"; i.e. the south. Seward was thought of as "the power behind the throne" and was deeply hated by southerners; more so than Lincoln in a lot of instances. Of course, this was very, very wrong. Seward was a wonderful man. Powell realized right after he committed the deed, as he told Gillette, that he had committed a serious crime. I believe he would not have lied, "on his deathbed", to the good Reverend. For all his errors, he was a religious young man. As for being chivalrous, he was very much so in regards to Mrs. Surratt. People who knew him before the attack on Seward (and right up to that horrid incident), claimed that Powell was very "highly esteemed" as a person.

I'm not "defending" anyone - just stating fact where it is. Why are you so defensive?