As I read Smoot's story, as he came to the boardinghouse he spotted a woman in a large sunbonnet on the stairs, who brought his name to Mrs. Surratt, so he wouldn't have had to ring the doorbell. So that's one less bell to answer, as the song goes.

I think Mr. Kirby would have mentioned the fact if he had come Friday night, as he did state that he had been there the following Saturday morning, Saturday evening, and Monday morning.

(02-24-2015 07:11 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  So that's one less bell to answer, as the song goes.

And what a song it was/is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZcA3kiaQb0

(02-24-2015 07:11 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  As I read Smoot's story...

Among the things Smoot claimed he was told by Mary Surratt during his brief Friday night meeting was that she was certain that his boat would be used that night. Would this indicate Mary was ignorant of the assassination plan and thought Booth (and the boys) were going to kidnap/capture Lincoln at Ford's that night? Both Weichmann and Smoot described Mary as being in a nervous state after 9 P.M. Weichmann used the phrase "agitated and restless," and Smoot said she was in "a state of feverish excitement."

(02-25-2015 03:32 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 07:11 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  As I read Smoot's story...

Among the things Smoot claimed he was told by Mary Surratt during his brief Friday night meeting was that she was certain that his boat would be used that night. Would this indicate Mary was ignorant of the assassination plan and thought Booth (and the boys) were going to kidnap/capture Lincoln at Ford's that night? Both Weichmann and Smoot described Mary as being in a nervous state after 9 P.M. Weichmann used the phrase "agitated and restless," and Smoot said she was in "a state of feverish excitement."

That's my own belief.

(02-25-2015 03:32 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Weichmann used the phrase "agitated and restless," and Smoot said she was in "a state of feverish excitement."

"Fever" can do that to you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skRzcqK8Xdw

(02-25-2015 03:32 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 07:11 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  As I read Smoot's story...

Among the things Smoot claimed he was told by Mary Surratt during his brief Friday night meeting was that she was certain that his boat would be used that night. Would this indicate Mary was ignorant of the assassination plan and thought Booth (and the boys) were going to kidnap/capture Lincoln at Ford's that night? Both Weichmann and Smoot described Mary as being in a nervous state after 9 P.M. Weichmann used the phrase "agitated and restless," and Smoot said she was in "a state of feverish excitement."

The boat could also have been intended to be used as part of an escape plan after an assassination...

That being said, I think it is more probable the Mary knew full well about the kidnap plot but not about the change to assassination.

(02-25-2015 05:23 PM)Gene C Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 03:32 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Weichmann used the phrase "agitated and restless," and Smoot said she was in "a state of feverish excitement."

"Fever" can do that to you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skRzcqK8Xdw

Thanks for the musical interludes, Gene.

Wouldn't the boat be needed either way? Also Mary seemed to take the assassination news in stride if all she had been expecting was a kidnapping. If A. C. Richards's account is right, Mary Surratt expressed no surprise at all and answered questions minimally. Reading his letters to Weichmann, he sounds sincere in the basic events but made mistakes on details, which he admitted could happen due to the passage of time and the fact that he had no notes to refer to.
Weichmann did include Richard's midnight visit in his narrative.

Thanks, Gene, for the link. I had the good fortune to see them perform live many years ago. They were superb. But I digress!

I think it boils down to what part of Weichmann’s testimony and/or later writings do we believe and what part do we not believe. Obviously, he lied at some point. Either he perjured himself in May 1865 during the trial of the conspirators or he later lied in an affidavit and in his book.

Which do we believe?

Bob

God point Pamela. If the Superintendent of Police showed up at my house in the middle of the night implicating my son through association, of the assassination of the President, I would be pretty darn rattled if I weren't already aware of it.

I have said repeatedly that my thoughts on Mrs. Surratt changed greatly about 35 years ago when I transcribed her statements upon arrest for a booklet we still publish and sell at Surratt House. I was very impressed with how cool and calm she was under questioning - almost as if she had known the moment would come and she had rehearsed for it.

As to the original question as to whether or not Booth went to the H Street home AFTER the assassination, there is no way in God's little green acres that Wild Bill will ever convince me of that. Before the deed was done, yes; but not afterwards. It just doesn't make sense that he would do that. As of 10:30 that night, I doubt that he had any thoughts at all about Mary Surratt. She had served her purpose earlier in the day.

As I recall, there's considerable doubt about whether Richards visited the boarding house after the assassination. The letters to Weichmann in which Richard claims to have been first upon the scene are dated 1898 and 1899, but in a letter to Secretary Stanton dated May 12, 1865, contained in the rewards file, Richards makes no mention of his being there. Instead, he writes: "On the night of the assassination of President Lincoln, Detectives J. A. W. Clarvoe and Jas. A. McDevitt of the Police force of this Department obtained information which led them to believe that John H. Surratt was implicated in the murder of the late President, and on application to me previous to the hour of two o'clock on the night of the murder, I gave them permission to take other officers of the force with them and proceed to the house of Surratt's mother . . . and search said house . . . "

Surely if Superintendent Richards had gone to the house himself that evening and spoken to Mary Surratt (and observed the suspicious behavior that he mentions in his 1898 letter to Weichmann) he would have mentioned it to Secretary Stanton. (The editor of Weichmann's book suggests that Richards might have failed to mention the alleged visit because he had been reprimanded by Stanton for sending Weichmann to Canada and wanted to "disengage himself from any further confrontation with Stanton," but I don't find this argument convincing--why get himself further in trouble with Stanton by withholding material evidence relating to one of the defendants?)

John T. Holohan in an affidavit contained in the rewards file dated June 16, 1865, claimed that Clarvoe and McDevitt were the first officers to appear at the boarding house at 2:00 a.m. on April 15. McDevitt in his conspiracy trial testimony mentions only himself, Clarvoe, and some unnamed other officers turning up at the boardinghouse.

I don't know of any one else besides Richards himself in those 1890's letters who places Richards at the boardinghouse in the hours after the assassination. I think Richards' memory might have been playing tricks with him in 1898--quite understandable given the passage of time and all that had been written since.

(02-25-2015 08:23 PM)L Verge Wrote:  She had served her purpose earlier in the day.

Laurie, this is probably the single biggest reason why I personally believe Weichmann was most likely telling the truth regarding the 9:00 P.M. visitor being Booth. It just makes sense to me that he would check that she had been successful prior to his proceeding on to Ford's.

(02-25-2015 11:47 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  I think Richards' memory might have been playing tricks with him in 1898--

In 1885 Richards also made the claim that he was in Ford's Theatre at the time Lincoln was shot. Richards said he chased after Booth into the alley and questioned the black boy who had been holding Booth's horse. I believe the evidence is pretty overwhelming that Burroughs was white, but Richards' claim of Burroughs being black was accepted by a small number of assassination authors. Does anyone know if 1885 was the earliest time Richards claimed to be at Ford's? Did he say he was there in earlier accounts?

Laurie,
Two Pistols and a hat.

(02-26-2015 05:38 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 08:23 PM)L Verge Wrote:  She had served her purpose earlier in the day.

Laurie, this is probably the single biggest reason why I personally believe Weichmann was most likely telling the truth regarding the 9:00 P.M. visitor being Booth. It just makes sense to me that he would check that she had been successful prior to his proceeding on to Ford's.

I agree completely. I think Booth was likely there about 9 pm - but not afterwards

(02-25-2015 11:47 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  I think Richards' memory might have been playing tricks with him in 1898--

In 1885 Richards also made the claim that he was in Ford's Theatre at the time Lincoln was shot. Richards said he chased after Booth into the alley and questioned the black boy who had been holding Booth's horse. I believe the evidence is pretty overwhelming that Burroughs was white, but Richards' claim of Burroughs being black was accepted by a small number of assassination authors. Does anyone know if 1885 was the earliest time Richards claimed to be at Ford's? Did he say he was there in earlier accounts?

Gary Planck did a small booklet on A.C. Richards about 30 years ago. I have forgotten completely what his conclusion was as to the police chief's veracity, etc.

---

(02-26-2015 07:39 AM)Wild Bill Wrote:  Laurie,
Two Pistols and a hat.

I just composed a great response to you, Bill, and it disappeared from the screen before I could hit Send. I hope I can reconstruct it.

After more than a decade of you throwing the pistols and hat routine at me, you know by now that I'm not buying your theory.

About a year ago on this forum, I casually mentioned that, for all we knew, Booth could have stolen Peanuts's hat as he mounted and fled out the alley. That disturbed one member so much that I received 2-3 very angry PMs from that person asking in no uncertain terms how I could make such a stupid comment. I guess I'm still stupid, but I still think that it is just as logical (and unsolvable) a premise as anything else that has been floated around over the years.

As for Booth hanging a hard left and galloping down 7th Street to reach the boardinghouse, I just can't imagine that the thought of his having lost his hat and needing another one within the first five minutes after attacking Lincoln even crossed his mind -- unless he already had a spare somewhere on him or horse.

If we imagine that he did head to Ma Surratt for a hat, she would not be waiting anxiously for him to show up so that she could hand him an already retrieved chapeau from son John's room - or begged one from Weichmann or Holohan. She had no previous knowledge of him needing a hat in an emergency.

If his leg was injured at the theater (and yes, I still believe it was), how would he have dismounted and climbed the steps to her front door? Who would have held his frisky little mare? The mental image of him hobbling half way up the stairs and cursing as "Frisky" went galloping down H Street and Mrs. Surratt throws a hat out the door at him is just too good not to mention! Include a gun belt and two pistols being thrown at him also is icing on the cake.

Where did the pistols come from? I have always suspected that Herold was assigned to hold onto them while in the city and then to turn them over to Booth when they met up en route to Surrattsville. Or, they may even have been originally issued to Herold for his protection/action related to either Seward or VP Johnson. Art Loux also had an interesting theory that Herold retrieved them from a second hiding place in the Surrattsville barn.

I could also imagine that the weaponry was part of the "supplies" that Atzerodt stated had been sent to Dr. Mudd as part of the original kidnap scheme. Or, Herold delivered them to Mudd sometime on April 12 or 13, when (according to Huntt) the young man had been to Southern Maryland. I can easily see where Booth would become infuriated by Lincoln's speech on April 11, spend April 12 getting things into gear, and sending Herold down to meet with Southern sympathizers that afternoon and all day on April 13.

Those are my guesses (and just guesses because I can't prove them - and neither can anyone else) about two pistols and a hat. And everyone, please don't send me any more threatening PMs...

(02-26-2015 05:38 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 08:23 PM)L Verge Wrote:  She had served her purpose earlier in the day.

Laurie, this is probably the single biggest reason why I personally believe Weichmann was most likely telling the truth regarding the 9:00 P.M. visitor being Booth. It just makes sense to me that he would check that she had been successful prior to his proceeding on to Ford's.

(02-25-2015 11:47 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  I think Richards' memory might have been playing tricks with him in 1898--

In 1885 Richards also made the claim that he was in Ford's Theatre at the time Lincoln was shot. Richards said he chased after Booth into the alley and questioned the black boy who had been holding Booth's horse. I believe the evidence is pretty overwhelming that Burroughs was white, but Richards' claim of Burroughs being black was accepted by a small number of assassination authors. Does anyone know if 1885 was the earliest time Richards claimed to be at Ford's? Did he say he was there in earlier accounts?

Maybe both accounts are right. Peanuts could have been a light enough skinned mulatto to pass for white on occasion.