I looked through the Barbee papers last year, and IIRC "The Murder of Mrs. Surratt" is very large, and takes up multiple binders.

(09-19-2015 02:14 PM)Gene C Wrote:  . . . 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)

Gene, my wife, daughter, and two grand-daughters will be at Baugher's U-Pick pumpkin farm outside Westminster tomorrow, though they'll be picking apples, not pumpkins. That will come in a month or so, when the pumpkins and hard squash are ready for picking.

Having seen this movie before, my dog Murphy and I will be staying home so I can bang on an old Gibson guitar without being told to quiet down. I'll tell Patty to keep an eye out for important documents, however.

--Jim

(09-19-2015 02:14 PM)Gene C Wrote:  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.

You, sir, just made my day with this post!

Thanks to everyone who has replied to my questions. Much appreciated!

Jim, I already like Murphy without ever having met him!

Gene, on July 5, 2009, I received an email which I quote here:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"I know what happened to Lincoln.

He wasn't shot.

He was stabbed through the right eye by a dagger.

Those who stood in the shadows of Booth were the Vatican.

I know where this dagger is hid.

He (Booth) gave it to Elizabeth Quesenberry.

The dagger ended up in Ohio.

It is buried beside a house 6 ft down in a clay pot.

The dagger has 3 Jewels. A red one at the end of the handle and 2 blue ones off the grips extensions."

(09-19-2015 03:36 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Jim, I already like Murphy without ever having met him!
. . . I received an email which I quote here:

Roger, I guarantee that Murphy, shown here, would like you, too!


That email you received is rather creepy. Whomever wrote it had some knowledge of the assassination.

Weird!

--Jim

(09-19-2015 08:26 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?"

(09-19-2015 08:36 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(09-19-2015 08:25 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.

First I'd like to say Murphy is one adorable doggie.
If Weichmann drove Mrs Surratt into the country because he knew of the plans then why did Mary go? And why the concocted story given to him for the purpose of the trip? I asked John Fazio why he said in his book, that Weichmann turned states evidence, and he apologized and said it was a mistake and would be corrected in the next printing.

Laurie, you've asked me a couple of times why Father Mulcahy despised the Weichmann and didn't think much of his brother and family. And I've wondered why Conroy's hatred was so bizarre and intense, and Mulcahey's just so intense, and unprofessional. I'm wondering if frustrated gay urges were a factor, something which is speculated about currently regarding many historic persons, sometimes based on thin evidence without enough respect for cultural and period differences. Previously I said that Mulcahy was frustrated in his hopes to have Louis as a parishioner, in confession and counseling him about his guilt in regards to Mary. But his hatred still seems personal and over the top, and suggests something more at play. Mulcahy's information gathering in regards to Weichmann with the 15 yr old Joseph Abel feels a little hinky, too. I'm reading Michael Schein's Surratt book and he suggested that Weichmann and Surratt may have both left school on the same day without completing their studies for some infraction, as speculated by Isacsson. "The commonly stated causes for their departure may be cover stories to hide something nobody wanted to discuss."--p 13. Personally, I think this speculation is just added to his book to drive his narrative and add more dimension to his "characters".

(09-19-2015 06:12 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Laurie, you've asked me a couple of times why Father Mulcahy despised the Weichmann and didn't think much of his brother and family. And I've wondered why Conroy's hatred was so bizarre and intense, and Mulcahey's just so intense, and unprofessional. I'm wondering if frustrated gay urges were a factor, something which is speculated about currently regarding many historic persons, sometimes based on thin evidence without enough respect for cultural and period differences.

I wouldn't publicly wonder or wander in that direction. There isn't any evidence as far as I know, and you haven't presented any, to go down that road. They chose to support the Surratt's over Weichmann, due to perceived wrongs. Comments have been made that there was also likely a political, regional, and/or friendship reason for their decision.

Thank you, Gene, for bringing that avenue to a stop (I hope). We old-timers have been down that road before with theorists, and it was all conjecture. Not all of history revolves around one's sexual orientation.

As for the reasons that Surratt and Weichmann left school at the same time, I believe that John C. Brennan and Msgr. Robert Keesler (the latter of whom went to St. Charles in the early-1900s) looked into that and determined that they left in the summer of 1862 when that semester ended. Surratt's leaving coincided with the death of his father, so he knew that he could not return to school. Weichmann evidently ran out of money.

Mulcahy (whom we judge based on Conroy's statements only) does seem over the top in his dislike of Weichmann - very unusual for a priest to be so vocal (if indeed he was). However, I suspect that his comments were born out of frustration over Weichmann's actions against fellow Catholics and his obvious desertion of the Church until he needed last rites. And then, even those got screwed up, thanks to Weichmann's brother.

BTW, there is a statement somewhere that Fr. Fred Weichmann had some discipline problems himself while in school. The school teacher in me would love to know how strict their German father was with his children's upbringing. Also the role that their behavior had based on their mother's insistence that they go to the priesthood. Weichmann previously wanted to be a pharmacist. A child's acting out in school is often rebellion against what is going on at home.

Finally, I hope John Fazio is reading this and will rethink (and research further) the question as to whether or not Weichmann was actually a state's witness. I'm pretty sure that James O. Hall told me he was. Mr. Hall knew law also, having been trained in military investigations during WWII and then rising to the top of the investigation division of the U.S. Department of Labor here in D.C. I do remember that John Lloyd was said to have received pay for being a witness. I think it was $60???

(09-19-2015 07:06 PM)Gene C Wrote:  

(09-19-2015 06:12 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Laurie, you've asked me a couple of times why Father Mulcahy despised the Weichmann and didn't think much of his brother and family. And I've wondered why Conroy's hatred was so bizarre and intense, and Mulcahey's just so intense, and unprofessional. I'm wondering if frustrated gay urges were a factor, something which is speculated about currently regarding many historic persons, sometimes based on thin evidence without enough respect for cultural and period differences.

I wouldn't publicly wonder or wander in that direction. There isn't any evidence as far as I know, and you haven't presented any, to go down that road. They chose to support the Surratt's over Weichmann, due to perceived wrongs. Comments have been made that there was also likely a political, regional, and/or friendship reason for their decision.

Admittedly anything is possible, but I agree that it was probably a "butting of heads" on a political, professional, or friendship level.

Murphy is a cutie, Jim! Love his eyes - looks like a very smart fellow!

Laurie, a friend of mine told me not long ago about a book on Amazon that was trying to pass off the assassination as being a lovers' quarrel between Lincoln and Booth. I can honestly say that I felt like slamming my head into a wall when I heard that - that's probably one you've heard before!

"If Weichmann drove Mrs Surratt into the country because he knew of the plans then why did Mary go? And why the concocted story given to him for the purpose of the trip?"

I don't understand your announcement that the April 14 trip to Surrattsville stemmed from a concocted story about Mrs. Surratt owing money to the Calverts and hoping to get money that was owed her by John Nothey. The reason for that trip is soldily grounded in irrefutable evidence. Take the time to research it. Did that trip prove handy for JWB? Yes, indeed, but the assassination would have gone on whether or not Mrs. Surratt and her "coachman" Weichmann had made the trip.

P.S. I have talked with some Nothey descendants over the years, and the gentleman was not the finest character. He was evidently the type who would skip out on meeting with his creditors, which is exactly what he did. Mrs. Surratt ended up asking Weichmann to write a letter to him and asking Bennett Gwynn to deliver it. Gwynn testified in court to that -- as did our pal, Louis.

Murphy thanks all for the kind remarks!

Apropos of nothing, I heard from a pedal-steel guitar-playing buddy in Nashville yesterday that the reason the South lost the Civil War was that, by 1865, the Confederate army was so short on supplies that when they fired a cannon ball at the Yankees, they'd have to send some soldiers to go bring it back so they could fire it another time.

That may be just a legend . . .

--Jim

(09-19-2015 07:06 PM)Gene C Wrote:  

(09-19-2015 06:12 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Laurie, you've asked me a couple of times why Father Mulcahy despised the Weichmann and didn't think much of his brother and family. And I've wondered why Conroy's hatred was so bizarre and intense, and Mulcahey's just so intense, and unprofessional. I'm wondering if frustrated gay urges were a factor, something which is speculated about currently regarding many historic persons, sometimes based on thin evidence without enough respect for cultural and period differences.

I wouldn't publicly wonder or wander in that direction. There isn't any evidence as far as I know, and you haven't presented any, to go down that road. They chose to support the Surratt's over Weichmann, due to perceived wrongs. Comments have been made that there was also likely a political, regional, and/or friendship reason for their decision.

Gene, those reasons don't explain the Fathers' intense and bizarrely imaginative hatred for Louis Weichmann, presuming to crawl into his head and soul and know the evil inside him. Yes, they chose to support the Surratts or, specifically, Mary over Weichmann. But they took their support to a mentally, emotionally disturbing level. The Unibomber sounded sane in comparison. They are not sacred cows; Conroy wrote a report to enter into the public domain and you posted it on this discussion forum. Laurie asked me more than once for my views, and that's my honest opinion, because this kind of intimate, raw hate talk stems from something more than it's stated rational, IMO.

A small portion of Conroy's report:

"This one time student for the priesthood whose early ambition was to ascend the alters of the Catholic Church to say mass, this candidate for the priesthood, turned his back on the alter of his early ambitions for one reason and one reason only: every candle burning on the alter would have revealed to Wichman's conscience the picture of Mrs. Surratt in infamy and desperation on the scaffold in the jail yard in Washington, a victim of the perfidy and dishonor of a Lou Wichman who had broken bread in her house many times as a guest and then turned against her with the open, flaming mouth of a hyena at the trial before the military tribunal."--Father Conroy in a statement made in 1943

(09-19-2015 08:48 PM)L Verge Wrote:  "If Weichmann drove Mrs Surratt into the country because he knew of the plans then why did Mary go? And why the concocted story given to him for the purpose of the trip?"

I don't understand your announcement that the April 14 trip to Surrattsville stemmed from a concocted story about Mrs. Surratt owing money to the Calverts and hoping to get money that was owed her by John Nothey. The reason for that trip is soldily grounded in irrefutable evidence. Take the time to research it. Did that trip prove handy for JWB? Yes, indeed, but the assassination would have gone on whether or not Mrs. Surratt and her "coachman" Weichmann had made the trip.

P.S. I have talked with some Nothey descendants over the years, and the gentleman was not the finest character. He was evidently the type who would skip out on meeting with his creditors, which is exactly what he did. Mrs. Surratt ended up asking Weichmann to write a letter to him and asking Bennett Gwynn to deliver it. Gwynn testified in court to that -- as did our pal, Louis.

You're putting words into my mouth. Of course I don't know all the history that you do, but Mary could have simply sent him a letter for 3 cents.

(09-19-2015 11:17 PM)Pamela Wrote:  

(09-19-2015 07:06 PM)Gene C Wrote:  

(09-19-2015 06:12 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Laurie, you've asked me a couple of times why Father Mulcahy despised the Weichmann and didn't think much of his brother and family. And I've wondered why Conroy's hatred was so bizarre and intense, and Mulcahey's just so intense, and unprofessional. I'm wondering if frustrated gay urges were a factor, something which is speculated about currently regarding many historic persons, sometimes based on thin evidence without enough respect for cultural and period differences.

I wouldn't publicly wonder or wander in that direction. There isn't any evidence as far as I know, and you haven't presented any, to go down that road. They chose to support the Surratt's over Weichmann, due to perceived wrongs. Comments have been made that there was also likely a political, regional, and/or friendship reason for their decision.

Gene, those reasons don't explain the Fathers' intense and bizarrely imaginative hatred for Louis Weichmann, presuming to crawl into his head and soul and know the evil inside him. Yes, they chose to support the Surratts or, specifically, Mary over Weichmann. But they took their support to a mentally, emotionally disturbing level. The Unibomber sounded sane in comparison. They are not sacred cows; Conroy wrote a report to enter into the public domain and you posted it on this discussion forum. Laurie asked me more than once for my views, and that's my honest opinion, because this kind of intimate, raw hate talk stems from something more than it's stated rational, IMO.

A small portion of Conroy's report:

"This one time student for the priesthood whose early ambition was to ascend the alters of the Catholic Church to say mass, this candidate for the priesthood, turned his back on the alter of his early ambitions for one reason and one reason only: every candle burning on the alter would have revealed to Wichman's conscience the picture of Mrs. Surratt in infamy and desperation on the scaffold in the jail yard in Washington, a victim of the perfidy and dishonor of a Lou Wichman who had broken bread in her house many times as a guest and then turned against her with the open, flaming mouth of a hyena at the trial before the military tribunal."--Father Conroy in a statement made in 1943

(09-19-2015 08:48 PM)L Verge Wrote:  "If Weichmann drove Mrs Surratt into the country because he knew of the plans then why did Mary go? And why the concocted story given to him for the purpose of the trip?"

I don't understand your announcement that the April 14 trip to Surrattsville stemmed from a concocted story about Mrs. Surratt owing money to the Calverts and hoping to get money that was owed her by John Nothey. The reason for that trip is soldily grounded in irrefutable evidence. Take the time to research it. Did that trip prove handy for JWB? Yes, indeed, but the assassination would have gone on whether or not Mrs. Surratt and her "coachman" Weichmann had made the trip.

P.S. I have talked with some Nothey descendants over the years, and the gentleman was not the finest character. He was evidently the type who would skip out on meeting with his creditors, which is exactly what he did. Mrs. Surratt ended up asking Weichmann to write a letter to him and asking Bennett Gwynn to deliver it. Gwynn testified in court to that -- as did our pal, Louis.

You're putting words into my mouth. Of course I don't know all the history that you do, but Mary could have simply sent him a letter for 3 cents.

You are the one who used the word "concocted" in your previous post, Pamela, so I just quoted you. As for the Nothey issue, Mrs. Surratt had already been in touch with Nothey, and this trip to meet in person was in hopes of finally coaxing the money he owed her out of his hands and into hers.

It was Friday, so the mail coach would not run out of D.C. until Monday. It would reach the tavern that afternoon, but then it was anyone's guess when (and if) Nothey would pick up the letter. Even if he picked it up on Tuesday, the coach would not be back until Wednesday. Under the fastest time, it would take a week for the two of them to communicate via snail mail. Time's a'wasting with the Calverts; she needs Nothey's payment asap. A face-to-face meeting makes sense.

People have also asked me why she just didn't go to Nothey's house to demand the money. A Victorian lady would not do that. It just was not proper, and it was not safe when dealing with a somewhat spurious character. I may be wrong in assuming this, but Louis Weichmann could have knocked on Nothey's door as her representative. Perhaps Mrs. Surratt didn't think he could be forceful enough?

In any case, she believed Nothey would come to her tavern; and when he didn't, it became too late to go searching for him and still get back to H Street before dark night. People always assume that she waited around for Lloyd to come home so that she could deliver the field glasses and message. Emma Offutt could have done that. I suspect (but can't prove) that Mary was waiting around until the last moment in the hopes that Nothey really would show up.

(Love Murphy, too, Jim!!!)

Laurie, you made an assumption as to what I meant by the word 'concoction' which was wrong. In his book, written more than two decades after the assassination, Weichmann admitted that he, over the years, pondered the details of the day of the trip to Surrattsville on the 14th "almost incessantly". That's OCD for you! I think he suffered from a combination of OCD and PTSD (post traumatic stress syndrome). The letter from Calvert which Mrs. Surratt told Louis came on the 14th, was dated the 12th, and he believed that Mary lied to him when she said the letter arrived on the 14th because it should have arrived no later than the 13th. Mary used this urgency of timing to explain to him the necessity and the purpose of the trip, and she had him say the same in a letter he wrote to Nothey at her behest at the tavern. Nowhere in the letter did she mention an appointment with him at the tavern, or to meet her at the tavern or anywhere else, and Gynne was given the letter just after it was written and testified that he gave it to Nothey that day.

P 170, Weichmann: Whenever I think of it, and it is almost incessantly, it is always with feelings of mortification and shame, that a woman, having children other than myself, could have so basely and willingly betrayed my confidence, and stooped to actions which have almost ruined my life. It was a vile insult and outrage upon my young manhood. That drive to Surrattsville, and the developments growing out of it, cost Mrs. Surratt her life. She dug a pit for others, but fell into it herself. Certain it is, if she had remained at home and attended to the duties of her boarding house, she would, I verily believe, not have been punished as she was."

You said,
"People have also asked me why she just didn't go to Nothey's house to demand the money. A Victorian lady would not do that. It just was not proper, and it was not safe when dealing with a somewhat spurious character. I may be wrong in assuming this, but Louis Weichmann could have knocked on Nothey's door as her representative. Perhaps Mrs. Surratt didn't think he could be forceful enough?"

Mary paid a visit to Powell (talk about spurious characters, having just brutally beat a woman and on the eve of the almost-slaughter at Seward's house) in his hotel room at the Herndon House, was that proper? Are you saying that Louis might not have had the force or strength to lift his hand up to knock on the door, or not been forceful enough to say, 'Mrs. Surratt would like to speak to you."? Louis had attributes enough to drive her in the country and serve as her protector during the trip. Are you saying she needed a Mafia loan shark to deal with Nothey, despite the fact that she, a Victorian lady, had managed to hold a business conversation with him just a few days prior?

You said, "People always assume that she waited around for Lloyd to come home so that she could deliver the field glasses and message. Emma Offutt could have done that. " Emma would have told Lloyd to have the shooting irons and whiskey ready for parties coming that night?