I know we have discussed this some before, but I can't find it.

Do we know for sure that Booth visited Mary's boarding house after the assassination? What facts or information do we have that tend to indicate that he did?

(02-22-2015 05:57 PM)Gene C Wrote:  I know we have discussed this some before, but I can't find it.

Gene, the discussion is here.

I have not read all of the previous thread that Roger links to in his message above but here is a little more to think about.

When Reverdy Johnson, attorney for Mary Surratt, questioned Louis Weichman on Saturday, May 13 at the trial, he tried to establish the time that a “visitor” stopped at Mrs. Surratt’s boarding house on the night of the assassination.

Johnson ask specifically about the time of the visitor, “Before what is understood to have been the time of the assassination?”

Weichman replied, “Yes, sir. The assassination is said to have taken place at half-past ten. It was before that time.”

Johnson accepted that answer and moved on. Earlier in the testimony, Weichman denied knowing who the visitor was or hearing any of the conversation between Mrs. Surratt and the visitor.

I can't imagine that Booth would stop anywhere. He needed to get out of town fast.

Thanks Roger, and I agree with you Robert.
The thread about 'Johnson at odds with Holt' reminded me of this topic.....

Gene, thanks for asking this question again. I have been thinking about it in relation to several of the more recent thread subjects, and I must admit to being more open to the possibility of Booth making a stop at the boarding house than I was before. I can't say I am convinced but I do think it a possibility.

Part of the reason being, the discussions of Booth's revolvers/gun belt as well as having re-read testimony on what items were in Booth's possession when he was killed. When he actually pulled the trigger, I just can't believe that Booth was wearing/carrying a gun belt and revolvers, carrying an extra hat, carrying his diary with personal photos, his meerschaum pipe, and any of the other numerous items that have been described in his possession at the time of his demise. Now certainly some of the more general items were provided by Jones.

But that still leaves the guns and belt, a replacement hat, the diary/photos, the pipe, and maybe a couple of other items. It is most certain that Booth was not wearing a gun belt and was not wearing a hat when he left the theatre. There has been some debate as to whether he was carrying his revolvers and the other items. There was also some debate about the hat. Some made the point that based on the type of saddle he had, any saddlebags (if even present) would have been small and would not have accommodated many of those items.

For the sake of argument let's say he wanted to keep his possessions to a minimum when actually shooting the President so as not to hinder his movement in a sticky situation. To me, that would leave af few possibilities as to where the personal items came from.
- David Herold had them and passed them along to Booth when they met up.
- Booth had stashed them at the boarding house (or maybe elsewhere) earlier in the night.
- They were passed along to him by another unknown conspirator.

I can't shake the feeling the Booth would not have trusted Herold with the items. He had some role in the various assassinations planned for the night. What if Herold got caught? What if they did not meet up after the assassination for some other reason?

In this day and age we hear all the time about preparing a "go bag". Vital items in a bag that one could grab quickly to leave with in case of an emergency. Maybe Booth had just such a "go bag" stashed at the Surratt Boarding House. A quick pass by to grab the "bag" and he was again on his way. He could have done this easily without interacting with anyone. This "detour" would have only taken a few minutes and a route to the Navy Yard bridge could have still taken him across the Captiol grounds (if in fact that was him that rode that way that night).

Was Booth wearing a hat when he crossed the Navy Yard Bridge? Was he wearing a gun belt at that time? I don't remember for sure, but I think he was at least wearing a hat.

Again, I've not convinced myself of the "go bag" scenario but I am more open to such a possibility than I was in the past.

(02-22-2015 06:25 PM)RobertLC Wrote:  When Reverdy Johnson, attorney for Mary Surratt, questioned Louis Weichman on Saturday, May 13 at the trial, he tried to establish the time that a “visitor” stopped at Mrs. Surratt’s boarding house on the night of the assassination.

Johnson ask specifically about the time of the visitor, “Before what is understood to have been the time of the assassination?”

Weichman replied, “Yes, sir. The assassination is said to have taken place at half-past ten. It was before that time.”

Johnson accepted that answer and moved on. Earlier in the testimony, Weichman denied knowing who the visitor was or hearing any of the conversation between Mrs. Surratt and the visitor.

Hi Bob. Regarding this pre-assassination visitor there is a difference between Weichmann's trial testimony and what he says in his book. In his book Weichmann writes that, "Mrs. Holohan corroborated the testimony of the writer as to the fact of some person coming at that time, but if Mrs. Surratt said to her it was Mr. Kirby, then Mrs. Surratt stated what I believe to be a deliberate falsehood. The words of Mrs. Surratt's daughter uttered on the morning of the 15th prove beyond question that it was Booth."

Later Weichmann writes that when the detectives left on the morning of the 15th Anna Surratt cried out, "Oh, Ma! Mr. Weichmann is right; just think of that man (John W. Booth) having been here an hour before the assassination. I am afraid it will bring suspicion upon us."

At the trial Weichmann denied knowledge of who the visitor was. In his book, however, he clearly indicates it was Booth.

So did Weichmann tell the truth at the trial, OR did Weichmann tell the truth in his book? Opinions?

Weichmann first made public his claim that Booth had visited the boardinghouse an hour before the assassination in July 1865, just days after the executions. According to Joseph George in his article "Nature's First Law," Weichmann had privately made this claim to Ben Pittman sometime after June 12, 1865, and Holt and Burnett were furious when they found out that Weichmann hadn't mentioned this during the trial.

I find it strange that if Anna did indeed make the remark as quoted, Weichmann didn't mention it during the trial or his numerous interrogations, since he could have hardly failed to grasp its significance. My guess is that Anna might have commented on Booth visiting the house on the day of the assassination, rather than the hour before the assassination, and that Weichmann (perhaps unconsciously) embroidered it.

At John Surratt's trial, Olivia Jenkins claimed that the visitor to the boardinghouse was a man who brought her some papers.

(02-23-2015 09:25 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  At John Surratt's trial, Olivia Jenkins claimed that the visitor to the boardinghouse was a man who brought her some papers.

I'll have to go back and read Ms. Jenkins testimony from the Surratt trial to give myself a little context. I do find it strange that someone would be delivering papers to a woman/girl (who I believe was unmarried and about 15 years old) after 9:00 pm. That just doesn't seem to match up with what my idea of the social standards of the time would allow. I am by no means an expert on the social standards of the mid 19th century however.

Quote:Was Booth wearing a hat when he crossed the Navy Yard Bridge? Was he wearing a gun belt at that time? I don't remember for sure, but I think he was at least wearing a hat.

Good point! I, too feel that JWB must have at least been wearing a hat of some type. Had he not been wearing headgear, the bridge sentry would have definitely made note of a "hatless"man crossing the bridge. In the Victorian era, appearing hatless in public was akin to going outdoors without one's pants today! Remember Powell's strange headdress when arrested at Mrs. Surratt's house...it was just NOT considered proper to be outside without a hat, thus a person (man or woman) would appear strange without a head covering.

(02-23-2015 09:42 AM)STS Lincolnite Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 09:25 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  At John Surratt's trial, Olivia Jenkins claimed that the visitor to the boardinghouse was a man who brought her some papers.

I'll have to go back and read Ms. Jenkins testimony from the Surratt trial to give myself a little context. I do find it strange that someone would be delivering papers to a woman/girl (who I believe was unmarried and about 15 years old) after 9:00 pm. That just doesn't seem to match up with what my idea of the social standards of the time would allow. I am by no means an expert on the social standards of the mid 19th century however.

She was about 19 (and unmarried). She testified that the man called during supper, that Anna Surratt answered the door, and that the man (a Captain Scott of the navy) left some papers for her. As the man didn't see her alone (and indeed doesn't seem to have seen her at all, but just dropped by with the papers), I don't think there would be any impropriety.

(02-23-2015 09:58 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 09:42 AM)STS Lincolnite Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 09:25 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  At John Surratt's trial, Olivia Jenkins claimed that the visitor to the boardinghouse was a man who brought her some papers.

I'll have to go back and read Ms. Jenkins testimony from the Surratt trial to give myself a little context. I do find it strange that someone would be delivering papers to a woman/girl (who I believe was unmarried and about 15 years old) after 9:00 pm. That just doesn't seem to match up with what my idea of the social standards of the time would allow. I am by no means an expert on the social standards of the mid 19th century however.

She was about 19 (and unmarried). She testified that the man called during supper, that Anna Surratt answered the door, and that the man (a Captain Scott of the navy) left some papers for her. As the man didn't see her alone (and indeed doesn't seem to have seen her at all, but just dropped by with the papers), I don't think there would be any impropriety.

Thanks Susan. This clarifies some for me and confuses me some. I got the age as 15 yo from Steers book. If she was 19 and the call was at supper time (assuming 6-7 pm which I would think would be a common supper time), and papers dropped off I agree there would be no impropriety by the standards of the day.

However, the visit to the boarding house Weichmann referred to was late in the evening stating it was roughly an hour before the assassination (which by most accounts occurred at about 10:20 pm so the boarding house visit probably around the 9:00 hour). Did they eat supper as late as 9:00 or after? The visitor to the boarding house Weichmann is referring to would seem to me to be an entirely different visitor than Miss Jenkins described.

In his book, Weichmann said that he and Mrs. Surratt got home from Surrattsville at half past eight, that he then returned the rented horse and buggy to the stable, and that while he was at supper, he heard the doorbell ring and that Mrs. Surratt answered it. He said that Mrs. Surratt had been expecting a visitor at nine that evening and that this visitor was Booth.

Weichmann testified at the conspiracy trial that he and Mrs. Surratt got back to Washington around 8:30 or 9:00 and that about 10 minutes later, while he was eating supper, someone rang the doorbell and Mrs. Surratt answered it. (That would have seemed an ideal time for him to recall Anna's alleged statement about Booth visiting an hour before the assassination, or Mrs. Surratt having told him she was expecting a visitor.)

So Weichmann's and Olivia's recollections are consistent as to the 9:00 p.m. supper and as to someone ringing the doorbell, though not in any other respect. (For what it's worth, Olivia said that she didn't hear the bell ring at any other time that night except when her own visitor came. Her age of 19 comes from census records and her tombstone at Mount Olivet, which gives a birthdate of 1846.)

This discussion seems to support Weichman’s testimony that the visitor was at Mary Surratt’s boarding house before the assassination. That helps answer the original question for this thread. Therefore, can we assume that Weichman was telling the truth in that portion of his testimony?

Since he did not identify Booth in the testimony, but did so in his book, Roger’s question is a really good one. In which place did he tell the truth?

Seems like there would have been no more certain way to send Mary Surratt to the gallows than for Weichman to identify Booth as the much discussed visitor that night, right before the assassination. But he didn’t. Instead he writes about it later in his book.

Interesting, paradox. Was his personal view of his role enriched by time, as he wrote his book?

(02-23-2015 09:25 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Weichmann first made public his claim that Booth had visited the boardinghouse an hour before the assassination in July 1865, just days after the executions. According to Joseph George in his article "Nature's First Law," Weichmann had privately made this claim to Ben Pittman sometime after June 12, 1865, and Holt and Burnett were furious when they found out that Weichmann hadn't mentioned this during the trial.

I'm sure the witnesses were "coached" to answer only questions they were asked and not to add any additional information not asked for. It was the prosecutions fault for not directly asking Weichmann.
(who is Joseph George?)

(02-23-2015 11:47 AM)Gene C Wrote:  I'm sure the witnesses were "coached" to answer only questions they were asked and not to add any additional information not asked for. It was the prosecutions fault for not directly asking Weichmann.

I think this is right on. I know it is typical today for witnesses to be directed to answer only the questions posed to them and not to elaborate or offer opinions. I assume it was the same in 1865.

---

(02-23-2015 11:41 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  In his book, Weichmann said that he and Mrs. Surratt got home from Surrattsville at half past eight, that he then returned the rented horse and buggy to the stable, and that while he was at supper, he heard the doorbell ring and that Mrs. Surratt answered it. He said that Mrs. Surratt had been expecting a visitor at nine that evening and that this visitor was Booth.

Weichmann testified at the conspiracy trial that he and Mrs. Surratt got back to Washington around 8:30 or 9:00 and that about 10 minutes later, while he was eating supper, someone rang the doorbell and Mrs. Surratt answered it. (That would have seemed an ideal time for him to recall Anna's alleged statement about Booth visiting an hour before the assassination, or Mrs. Surratt having told him she was expecting a visitor.)

So Weichmann's and Olivia's recollections are consistent as to the 9:00 p.m. supper and as to someone ringing the doorbell, though not in any other respect. (For what it's worth, Olivia said that she didn't hear the bell ring at any other time that night except when her own visitor came. Her age of 19 comes from census records and her tombstone at Mount Olivet, which gives a birthdate of 1846.)

Thanks Susan, that helps a lot. In my day supper was at 6:00. If you weren't there at 6:00 you got your own plate later (if there was anything left! ). But I suppose that it would make sense that in 1860s it would be common to wait for the lady of the house before commencing with supper.

I suppose Weichmann and Miss Jenkins could both be right. It could be that Mrs. Surratt was expecting Booth (and told Weichmann so) but that he didn't show up. Weichmann would have thought it was Booth (because he was expected) that rang the bell but instead it was the man (Captain Scott) delivering Miss Jenkins' papers that rang the doorbell.