I think Weichmann's testimony helped, but she would have been convicted without it.
- Her denial of recognizing Lewis Paine in front of the detectives,
- Anna's comment about Booth being at the house the day of the assassination,
- her trip to the Surratt Tavern (where the guns were hidden) the day of the assassination
- John's involvement as a courier and his trips to Richmond and Canada,
- the tavern that she owned (and operated only a few months prior) being a meeting place and where several people had been arrested,
- the boarding house in Washington being used as a stopping spot for a few of John's courier friends,
- Booth's picture being hidden
all this worked against her, and would/could be known without Weichmann.

Weichmann's testimony only made it a little easier for the feds, he had the details and dates, he had a close relationship with the family, but the feds had plenty of evidence against her without him. The trip to the tavern the day of the assassination was a key event, but only one of many items against her.

I agree with Herb, Stanton did what he felt he had to do for justice and to protect the country. From his viewpoint, the country was at a point of crisis. Johnson certainly didn't have the skills to deal with the situation effectively. Seward was disabled. There was no one else but Stanton.

I think Mary in one regard was like the others involved, she didn't consider the drastic consequences of her actions.

I need a legal answer here: For all these years, I have heard qualified historians refer to Weichmann and Lloyd as "turning state's evidence against their landlady..." Is there a difference between "turning state's evidence" and just being a "witness for the prosecution?"

(09-19-2015 09:24 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 11:33 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Rick, I don't know, so I was wondering what credible witnesses, comments, or information you base your conclusion on in post #232.
You see that situation a little different than I do, and it may be I just have a higher opinion of Weichmann's character than you do.
(either way, I find most of this an interesting discussion.)

Gene - Check the post #. I think you cited the wrong one in questioning Rick.

Oops, your right, it was post #381

________________________________________________________________________________​_________________________________________________-

Anyone else feel that Weichmann might be as worried or more by what unknown Confederate operatives might do to him as compared to perceived threats by the feds?
The feds knew what he was going to say.
The Confederates didn't know what he would say, or what he knew, or who he would implicate.
Just eliminate him before he testifies. Problem solved.

(09-19-2015 09:25 AM)Gene C Wrote:  I think Weichmann's testimony helped, but she would have been convicted without it.
- Her denial of recognizing Lewis Paine in front of the detectives,
- Anna's comment about Booth being at the house the day of the assassination,
- her trip to the Surratt Tavern (where the guns were hidden) the day of the assassination
- John's involvement as a courier and his trips to Richmond and Canada,
- the tavern that she owned (and operated only a few months prior) being a meeting place and where several people had been arrested,
- the boarding house in Washington being used as a stopping spot for a few of John's courier friends,
- Booth's picture being hidden
all this worked against her, and would/could be known without Weichmann.

Weichmann's testimony only made it a little easier for the feds, he had the details and dates, he had a close relationship with the family, but the feds had plenty of evidence against her without him. The trip to the tavern the day of the assassination was a key event, but only one of many items against her.

I agree with Herb, Stanton did what he felt he had to do for justice and to protect the country. From his viewpoint, the country was at a point of crisis. Johnson certainly didn't have the skills to deal with the situation effectively. Seward was disabled. There was no one else but Stanton.

I think Mary in one regard was like the others involved, she didn't consider the drastic consequences of her actions.

While I agree with the points that Gene brings out as detrimental to Mary, I think we have to consider that, by our standards today and in a civil court, they would likely be termed circumstantial evidence. I once asked James O. Hall whether he thought Mary was innocent or guilty. He got his sly little grin on and told me he thought she knew what was going on, but that the court failed to prove it.

I also agree that Stanton was the logical one to run the show (even if Seward had not been attacked). The assassination of Lincoln was and was treated properly as an act of war. Who better to conduct the investigation of the murder than the man who had effectively worked with Lincoln and Grant to win that war on the battlefields.

---

"Pamela, I basically agree with that portion of your post, though I'm not sure what Weichmann's motivation was. It might have been kindness, it might have been something else. After all, it was Spring, he was a young man, and Mrs. Surratt may have been charming in his eyes."

Or, Jim, how about a quick thought off the top of my head that Weichmann was the logical one to drive Mrs. Surratt to the country on her business because he was in on the plans? I don't happen to believe that he knew any details about the plans because John Surratt didn't trust him, but my explanation makes as much sense as some of the claims that have been posted here.

(09-19-2015 09:26 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I need a legal answer here: For all these years, I have heard qualified historians refer to Weichmann and Lloyd as "turning state's evidence against their landlady..." Is there a difference between "turning state's evidence" and just being a "witness for the prosecution?"

"Turning State's evidence" generally means that a witness has been given immunity from prosecution or entered into a plea bargain in exchange for testifying for the government.

A "witness for the prosecution" is simply someone called by the government to testify, and doesn't imply any criminal involvement on the witness's part or that any deal was made.

Lloyd with his involvement with the "shooting irons" probably fell more into the first category than the second.

(09-19-2015 09:36 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Or, Jim, how about a quick thought off the top of my head that Weichmann was the logical one to drive Mrs. Surratt to the country on her business because he was in on the plans? I don't happen to believe that he knew any details about the plans because John Surratt didn't trust him, but my explanation makes as much sense as some of the claims that have been posted here.

Hi, Laurie--

Sure; that theory is as valid as any, because none of us can ever know or prove as much as we would like. Even if we discovered something in writing from one of the principals in this event, it might be totally untrue.

If a future historian based his or her theory of the Nicole Simpson/Ron Goldman murders on what O.J. Simpson said and wrote after the trial, he or she might come to believe Simpson was innocent and wrongly suspected and tried.

I've never been able to form a clear opinion on Weichmann, though I've read everything I could find by and about him. One day I feel one way about him and his motives, and a few days later I feel something entirely different. The other principals don't--to me--seem as open to different interpretations as Weichmann does--to me.

Again, I think the Federal government had info that was never used in Mrs. Surratt's trial and that Weichmann's testimony wasn't what sealed her fate. I further feel Mrs. Surratt and those tasked with defending her knew what that info was and that there was no defense against it. It just explains--to me--why some folks in this drama acted the way they did. But we'll probably never know.

--Jim

Thanks so much, Susan. Now, how do we find out whether Weichmann and Lloyd were truly "turning state's evidence?"

(09-19-2015 08:40 AM)L Verge Wrote:  We do know that Mrs. Surratt had financial matters with the Calvert family that were pressing her to get settled quickly (the Calverts were trying to settle an estate and needed things that had been dangling for 13 years to be cleared up). Mr Calvert testified to that in court.

I think she planned on making the trip anyhow. If Weichmann had not been available, there was the hired man who could have taken her. It was just opportune for Booth that she could deliver instructions and his field glasses at the same time.

Would her fate have been the same without Weichmann to testify about that trip? I doubt that Lloyd's testimony alone could have hanged her (his word against hers). By the way, local lore down here (that I heard long before I worked at Surratt House) was that the feds threatened to hang Lloyd by his thumbs from a tree in the front yard if he did not divulge what he knew. Wonder how many similar threats or promises the higher-ups made to Weichmann in order to get him to testify? Herb, I'm in agreement with you as to the pressures Mr. Stanton and Judge Holt could bring to bear.

John T. Ford claims here to have heard that Lloyd was threatened with torture.

https://archive.org/stream/jstor-2510176...1/mode/2up

In "They Have Killed Papa Dead," Anthony Pitch writes that James Owens, an employee of tavern owner Austin Adams, "tried stonewalling Colonel Wells until overcome by terror when told he would hung by his handcuffed arms." His source is a letter from Wells himself. EDITED: Found Wells' letter in the Rewards Files. He encloses a statement by Owens and adds, "He did not make it until he was handcuffed and threatened to be hung up."

James R Ford in a handwritten document called "Recollections of Carroll Prison" found at the Maryland Historical Society quotes a deputy keeper at the prison, a Mr. Tom S___ (I can't make out the last name) as saying that "Weichmann was the most frightened witness he had ever seen--and he believed he knew as much about the assassination as any one of the Confederates."

Quote:This is, of course, just gut instinct, like many statements on this thread, including more favorable opinions - like Jim said, none of us was there nor could peep into Weichmann's or other parties minds and souls.

I am glad this was mentioned as it has gotten a little out of hand in this thread in my opinion. Thank you, Jim!

Roger,

As for your original question, well, now that's something to think about! I believe Mrs. Surratt would have still been found guilty even if Weichmann was working that day. Gene listed very key points that would have pointed to her involvement without a word from either Weichmann or Lloyd. "Nest that hatched the egg" and all that.

Would she have hung? I halfway suspect she would have. I already agree with Laurie (and Mr. Hall) that Mrs. Surratt was guilty, but the court failed to make its case against her even with the testimonies of Lloyd and Weichmann.

At the same time I do believe Weichmann's and Lloyd's testimonies definitely brought her involvement up a big notch. Were they substantial enough to get her executed? Would her fate have been different if one or both witnesses hadn't actually been witnesses to testify? I am not sure.

I noticed that the last paragraph on the second page of Ford's piece starts to talk about Howell in irons and mentioning that he has been refusing to cooperate with the feds -- refusing to tell them about things that he knows nothing about.

I believe that I am correct that neither Rick Smith nor Wild Bill have been able to find out what eventually happened to James Owens. We're guessing that he may not have lived to get out of prison. As a black man, we can only imagine that he would be "interrogated" even harder than white prisoners. Could he have died in prison?

(09-19-2015 10:57 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I noticed that the last paragraph on the second page of Ford's piece starts to talk about Howell in irons and mentioning that he has been refusing to cooperate with the feds -- refusing to tell them about things that he knows nothing about.

I believe that I am correct that neither Rick Smith nor Wild Bill have been able to find out what eventually happened to James Owens. We're guessing that he may not have lived to get out of prison. As a black man, we can only imagine that he would be "interrogated" even harder than white prisoners. Could he have died in prison?

Laurie,

Colonel Wells sent a report to Colonel J. H. Taylor in Washington on April 28 from Bryantown, his headquarters, to update him on all the activities in his district, including the arrest of Owens and his employer Austin Adams and Adele, his wife {who would be arrested later that day}. Susan is right; Wells said that Owens would be, "handcuffed and threatened to be hung up," if he refused to make a statement. Owens told a few stretchers in his initial statement, such as saying he had rowed Harbin, Baden and "another man" {Lt. Garland Smith?} across a creek for $5. Later, at the Old Capitol, under much more pressure from a Lt. Currier, Owens confessed that he had rowed the three men across the Potomac. I would be willing to bet that the federals beat Owens to death while trying to get more from him than he really knew. One thing is for sure, Owens never came out of the Old Capitol alive. Bill Richter has the date of Owens' death. The Federals probably could not understand why Owens, a former slave, would withhold information. He should be grateful that he had been set free by them and so should cooperate.

Owens would die from his maltreatment in the Old Cap prison hospital, June 22, 1865

Can anyone post the text of David Rankin Barbee's "The Murder of Mrs. Surratt?" I am curious to read it. This is the source Bettie Trindal used for saying John Lloyd was hanged by his thumbs until he could no longer stand the pain. Many thanks to anyone who could post this.

I don't believe it has ever been published - either online or in print. One must go to Georgetown University's Lauinger Library and read Barbee's various papers the old-fashioned way. I'll check Mr. Hall's files at Surratt House, but I don't think he has anything except notes from Barbee's papers.

BTW: David Rankin Barbee was a staunch Southerner, and from what I have heard (have not read his papers) was a defender of Mrs. Surratt. At one point, he claimed that Booth and Herold never stopped at the tavern on their escape - in fact, he says they went a totally different (and roundabout) way to get to the Potomac.. Using his compass, they would never have made Mudd's place by 4 am or so.

Which only goes to prove Booth DID escape from Garrett's barn, he doubled back and headed north. Weichmann was a double agent who's testimony was intended to convict those confederate sympathizers who were involved in the plot and knew the real truth, but had to be silenced. It all fits.

The secret documents that tell all about this were discovered inside a carved out pumpkin at a farm previously owned by Whittaker Chambers near Westminster, MD. (I'm working on typing up the transcripts now on my good old Woodstock typewriter, its slow going with all the pumpkin goo stained pages) Not only that but it appears that Hanson Hiss and Alger Hiss were related.

It's all there in Dark Union, you just have to read between the lines.
(I never would have figured this out without Wild Bill's instructions on how to read a book. )

This message will self destruct in 24 hours.