I understand that descendants of Dr. Samuel Mudd still live in southern Maryland. Do they still carry the "torch" for Dr. Samuel Mudd's innocence or do they feel differently?

(05-15-2014 03:48 PM)RobertLC Wrote:  I understand that descendants of Dr. Samuel Mudd still live in southern Maryland. Do they still carry the "torch" for Dr. Samuel Mudd's innocence or do they feel differently?

The Mudd family is very nice to deal with, and as the generations increase so does the willingness to accept certain facts that are hard to dispute. Not all of the grandchildren were difficult to deal with even - I just had frequent run-ins with one in particular. Dr. Richard and I got along fine. I knew where he stood and he knew where I stood and never should the stone walls budge.

I have also found that Mudds who are out on different limbs of the genealogical tree from Dr. Sam's immediate descendants have always been less vocal and more accepting of historians. There is one exceptional great-grandchild on this forum who has a wonderful website on various aspects of Mudd history through the ages in conjunction with the area and the times that they lived in. He is not a professional historian, but he approaches the subject from the same analytical perspective that the pros do. I'm singing your praises, Bob Summers...

Thanks Laurie!

Very good info!

Several years ago, when I went on the JWB Escape Route Tour, I took a picture in the Mudd House of the couch that JWB sat on to get his leg set. I have attached a picture. Who is the woman pictured on the coffie table ?

   

Hi Rick. I believe it's Dr. Mudd's wife, Sarah Frances Dyer Mudd.

(05-16-2014 04:22 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Hi Rick. I believe it's Dr. Mudd's wife, Sarah Frances Dyer Mudd.

The photograph is of Francis Dyer Mudd, the doctor's wife. Ed

(03-17-2014 09:05 AM)Ed Steers Wrote:  I am a little late coming to this discussion. Dr. Mudd and I exchanged several letters over the years and when he became bed-ridden he would call me occasionally on Sunday mornings and we would talk. We remained good friends to the end and enjoyed our "verbal arm wrestling." In one of the letters he wrote me he stated, "I have always felt that my grandfather had known about the Lincoln kidnapping plan." He always maintained that there were two plots, not one. While his grandfather knew about the one, he did not know about the other. Hence, he was innocent. He did not accept the legal concept of "vicarious liability."

---

I can see Dr. Mudd's point on that, but it doesn't mean he was innocent. He aided Booth, he knew Booth and lied about it. I think Ed as history as well as your research has shown, Dr. Sam Mudd was guilty as charged.

(05-16-2014 11:11 AM)CJSchoonover Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 09:05 AM)Ed Steers Wrote:  I am a little late coming to this discussion. Dr. Mudd and I exchanged several letters over the years and when he became bed-ridden he would call me occasionally on Sunday mornings and we would talk. We remained good friends to the end and enjoyed our "verbal arm wrestling." In one of the letters he wrote me he stated, "I have always felt that my grandfather had known about the Lincoln kidnapping plan." He always maintained that there were two plots, not one. While his grandfather knew about the one, he did not know about the other. Hence, he was innocent. He did not accept the legal concept of "vicarious liability."

---

I can see Dr. Mudd's point on that, but it doesn't mean he was innocent. He aided Booth, he knew Booth and lied about it. I think Ed as history as well as your research has shown, Dr. Sam Mudd was guilty as charged.

Thank you. Yes, "guilty as charged." Difficult for some to accept.

Ed,

As I recall, you discussed the conspiracy law in at least one of your books. My recollection is that if the kidnapping turned to murder, then the conspirators are involved in a murder, not a kidnapping. Thus, in this case, they became conspirators to murder. Am I understanding it correctly?

I'm sure that Ed will expand on this, but he mentioned "vicarious liability" previously. James O. Hall drilled that English common law principle into our heads. It boils down to the point that, if one enters into a conspiracy, one is liable for what any member of that conspiracy might do. Modern law enforcement uses the term "felony murder" to explain one aspect of it. I have used it for forty years to explain to students the harm that can come from joining a gang. I believe that it is what the prosecution used to convict Charles Manson when he kept claiming that he wasn't at the scene of the Sharon Tate murders.

The only way a person can get out of a conspiracy is to completely end the full conspiracy (not just his/her role in it) or to report it to the authorities. Mudd's fairly continuous contact with Booth during November and December of 1864, his introduction of Booth into the Surratt family (even though claiming that Booth forced him to do the intro), and his failure to report the strangers at his house to the authorities in a timely fashion certainly would contribute to him being found guilty as charged.

(05-16-2014 04:37 PM)RobertLC Wrote:  Ed,

As I recall, you discussed the conspiracy law in at least one of your books. My recollection is that if the kidnapping turned to murder, then the conspirators are involved in a murder, not a kidnapping. Thus, in this case, they became conspirators to murder. Am I understanding it correctly?

You are correct. A conspiracy that starts out as a simple misdemeanor and turns to murder all conspirators share guilt regardless of intent or understanding. Terry Nichols was 100 miles away when Timothy McVey's bomb went off and he was convicted along with McVey - it's called "vicarious liability."

As we know, Dr. Mudd failed to hang by one vote - and it irritated me for years as to why one judge was swayed to execute a woman, but not a man who had lots going against him also (and I am not a bleeding heart for Mary Surratt's innocence as most of you know). My mentor, James O. Hall, explained that Mrs. Surratt - and the three others who were hanged -- had been in contact with Booth up to within hours of the assassination. As for Dr. Mudd, there is no evidence that he had contact with Booth once the capture scheme failed until after the deed was done. That was likely the one point that swayed the judge.

P.S. I'd like to talk to that judge and tell him of my theory that the reason Davy Herold stopped at the Huntt home in T.B. on the evening of April 13 is because he had been down in Southern Maryland spreading the word to the underground that something big was going to happen soon. After the Lincoln speech on April 11 irritated Booth, I bet there was a beehive of activity. And, if the Mudds were expecting company soon, that may be why the doctor asked his wife to answer the door at 4 am in the morning in her nightclothes (an unseemly thing to do). Perhaps they were already expecting this company? And, if I could ever prove that Herold talked to Mudd on April 12 or 13, that would have the doctor in the conspiracy until the end. Just a theory of mine -- just a theory...

(05-17-2014 11:30 AM)L Verge Wrote:  As for Dr. Mudd, there is no evidence that he had contact with Booth once the capture scheme failed until after the deed was done. That was likely the one point that swayed the judge.

George Atzerodt stated, "I am certain Dr. Mudd knew all about it, as Booth sent (as he told me) liquors & provisions for the trip with the President to Richmond, about two weeks before the murder to Dr. Mudd's."

Assuming ol' George was telling the truth is it known how these provisions were sent or just who took them to Mudd? I am assuming Booth didn't physically take them. Could Herold have delivered them?

Very interesting theory, Laurie. Also, quite plausible, I would think. Roger, your thoughts just add to the plausibility.

Another question for Laurie, Ed and others who know or might have known members of the Mudd family…Has their belief in the innocence of Dr. Sam Mudd been based on family loyalty and dedication or do they have evidence that they think proves his innocence?

(05-16-2014 07:26 AM)Ed Steers Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 04:22 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Hi Rick. I believe it's Dr. Mudd's wife, Sarah Frances Dyer Mudd.

The photograph is of Francis Dyer Mudd, the doctor's wife. Ed

Thanks Ed