Susan,
You said, "I believe that most of Weichmann's testimony was truthful, but I suspect that after the trial, and especially after the executions, "consumed" with guilt, he needed to justify his actions to himself and may well have adjusted his memory accordingly--quite possibly unconsciously. Memory can perform remarkable gymnastics, particularly under stress.

Precisely what part of his testimony was untruthful (is that the same as lying on the witness stand?) and what was he "consumed" with guilt about? Your logic seems to be, because Weichmann was "consumed with guilt" (no reason given for this conclusion) he "may have "adjusted" his memory in a "remarkable"gymnastic sort of way in order to justify his actions to himself. So you understand Weichmann's thought processes? What were they?

I said I believed that most of his testimony was truthful. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through his testimony in two trials line by line and tell you what I don't think is truthful, since I wasn't calling him a liar.

And, yes, I do believe he felt a sense of guilt at having given the testimony that (along with Lloyd's) sent Mary Surratt to the gallows. Certainly he spent the rest of his life justifying his actions to himself and to others and searching for approval. Again, that doesn't mean I think he was lying, or that Mary Surratt was guiltless. One can feel guilty even about being honest.

There are several possible explanations for Weichmann's omitting damning evidence against Mary at his conspiracy trial testimony (such as her inquiry about the pickets, his certainty that Booth was the 9 pm caller, etc.) One is that he simply forgot until after the trial, which I suppose is possible but seems unlikely given his multiple interrogations, his lengthy testimony, and the considerable time he had in prison to mentally replay everything that happened in the days and hours before the assassination. Another is that he withheld the evidence in an attempt to protect Mary, which would be chivalrous but, of course, but not in accordance with his duty to tell the government everything he knew. The third possibility is the one that I mentioned above. I don't pretend to be privy to the thought processes of someone who's been dead for over a century, however, which is why I prefaced my comment with "I suspect."

(05-23-2016 12:50 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  There are several possible explanations for Weichmann's omitting damning evidence against Mary at his conspiracy trial testimony (such as her inquiry about the pickets, his certainty that Booth was the 9 pm caller, etc.) One is that he simply forgot until after the trial, which I suppose is possible but seems unlikely given his multiple interrogations, his lengthy testimony, and the considerable time he had in prison to mentally replay everything that happened in the days and hours before the assassination. Another is that he withheld the evidence in an attempt to protect Mary, which would be chivalrous but, of course, but not in accordance with his duty to tell the government everything he knew.

In his book Weichmann writes: he and Mary were traveling along the exact same road Booth would use later that night to escape from Washington. Weichmann and Mary were in the buggy when they saw some soldiers along the roadside. Mary stopped the buggy and asked an old farmer why the soldiers were there. She was told that they were pickets. Mary then asked if they remained on guard all night. The farmer said that they were usually called in at about 8 in the evening. Mary replied, "I am glad to know that." Weichmann and Mary then continued on.

Since 1996 students have been writing me asking my opinion of whether or not Mary knew something was going to happen on April 14th. I always use the "picket story" in my replies, and tell them IMO Mary did indeed know something was about to go down. It makes little sense to me that a totally innocent woman would be that curious about when the pickets would depart (and would be glad to know they would be gone by the time Booth would be riding by).

How Weichmann could not testify about this has always been a major mystery to me. As Susan says, this is damning evidence (IMO). Thank you, Susan, for giving the possibilities for Weichmann leaving this out of his testimnoy. Pam, what do you think? I would love to get inside Weichmann's brain on this one and know for certain why this "picket information" never came out at trial.

(05-23-2016 12:50 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  I said I believed that most of his testimony was truthful. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through his testimony in two trials line by line and tell you what I don't think is truthful, since I wasn't calling him a liar.

And, yes, I do believe he felt a sense of guilt at having given the testimony that (along with Lloyd's) sent Mary Surratt to the gallows. Certainly he spent the rest of his life justifying his actions to himself and to others and searching for approval. Again, that doesn't mean I think he was lying, or that Mary Surratt was guiltless. One can feel guilty even about being honest.

There are several possible explanations for Weichmann's omitting damning evidence against Mary at his conspiracy trial testimony (such as her inquiry about the pickets, his certainty that Booth was the 9 pm caller, etc.) One is that he simply forgot until after the trial, which I suppose is possible but seems unlikely given his multiple interrogations, his lengthy testimony, and the considerable time he had in prison to mentally replay everything that happened in the days and hours before the assassination. Another is that he withheld the evidence in an attempt to protect Mary, which would be chivalrous but, of course, but not in accordance with his duty to tell the government everything he knew. The third possibility is the one that I mentioned above. I don't pretend to be privy to the thought processes of someone who's been dead for over a century, however, which is why I prefaced my comment with "I suspect."

When you say "most" of his testimony was truthful, what does "most" mean? 60%? 90%? As an attorney and writer you know the power and importance of words, their implications and meanings. I am neither and I get that. I believe you thoroughly researched the trial testimony for your book (congratulations) and if you are going to accuse the star witness of untruthful testimony (which is the logical inference from your statement) in the trial of the conspirators, you should be able to back it up with facts. I didn't say you called him a liar, I asked if testifying untruthfully was the same as lying. Weichmann endured lengthy cross examination from all of the defense lawyers, including Reverdy Johnson and was unimpeached.

You said, "Certainly he spent the rest of his life justifying his actions to himself and to others and searching for approval."
You can't possibly know that, and you even admit that you "don't pretend to be privy to the thought processes of someone who's been dead for over a century." And how do you support your claim that Weichmann spent the rest of his life justifying his actions to others? From the hundreds of interviews he granted to the press? That didn't happen. There is plenty of Weichmann correspondence but from what I've read, which is mostly the Richards and Porter correspondence, he was trying to gather as many facts as he could for his book, (which he ultimately trusted to his family to publish although he could have published during his lifetime and satisfied his "search for approval") and to be as accurate as possible in regards to the facts of the conspiracy, for himself and others like Dr. Porter and A.C. Richards.

You say, " I do believe he felt a sense of guilt at having given the testimony that (along with Lloyd's) sent Mary Surratt to the gallows." and justify your opinion with his thought processes that you claim to know even though you say you can't know them, and he spent the rest of his life "searching for approval". In reading the A.C. Richards and Dr. Porter letters my take away was a search for clarity, not approval, and BTW, Richards and Porter were clearly impressed with Weichmann and his conduct.

Where and why is his guilt?

I think I made it pretty clear why I thought he could have felt guilty. Here's an example involving much less extreme circumstances: I complain about bad service in a restaurant, and I later find out that the waitress lost her job and has been evicted from her house because she could not pay the rent after losing her job. I would feel guilty, even though I was perfectly justified in complaining about bad service. (Before you jump on me for this, this is purely an example. I'm really quite easygoing about such things.) I think most decent people would feel some guilt about giving testimony that sent someone that they had been close to the gallows, even if their testimony was entirely truthful.

As for what I think Weichmann was untruthful about, I'm simply not convinced that he was unaware of John Surratt's clandestine activities, or that he did not provide him with any of the information he sought.

For Weichmann's searching for approval, his letter to Bingham is certainly a good example: "You, more than any man alive to-day, are aware of the meed of praise to which I am entitled for the sacrifices I made and for the work I did in connection with that great trial of 1865. I am writing the history of that affair now and will have it published some day, either during my life time, or after my death. It will be written from the strict stand point of loyalty and truth. I have always felt that I would like to have some brief expression from you in writing as to what you think of the manner in which I performed my duty to the country and of the reward to which I am entitled in the estimation of all good people. As a matter of justice to me, will you not send me a kind letter expressing your views in that regard?"

What would you call summoning Creighton to his deathbed and writing that "he wished the people of this country to understand that in the great trial, and while on the witness stand, he told the truth and nothing but the truth" if not a final search for validation and approval?

And don't forget the Oldroyd book, for which Weichmann contributed the chapter on himself. In his correspondence with Oldroyd, he wrote on August 18, 1901, "I am pleased to hear that your book will place me all right in the minds of the public. That is what I desire above all else."

BTW, I'm actually quite sympathetic to Weichmann. He was a young man placed in a horrible position. And as a researcher I can't dislike anyone who saved future generations hours of deciphering handwriting by adopting the new technology of the typewriter.

(05-23-2016 05:19 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 12:50 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  There are several possible explanations for Weichmann's omitting damning evidence against Mary at his conspiracy trial testimony (such as her inquiry about the pickets, his certainty that Booth was the 9 pm caller, etc.) One is that he simply forgot until after the trial, which I suppose is possible but seems unlikely given his multiple interrogations, his lengthy testimony, and the considerable time he had in prison to mentally replay everything that happened in the days and hours before the assassination. Another is that he withheld the evidence in an attempt to protect Mary, which would be chivalrous but, of course, but not in accordance with his duty to tell the government everything he knew.

In his book Weichmann writes: he and Mary were traveling along the exact same road Booth would use later that night to escape from Washington. Weichmann and Mary were in the buggy when they saw some soldiers along the roadside. Mary stopped the buggy and asked an old farmer why the soldiers were there. She was told that they were pickets. Mary then asked if they remained on guard all night. The farmer said that they were usually called in at about 8 in the evening. Mary replied, "I am glad to know that." Weichmann and Mary then continued on.

Since 1996 students have been writing me asking my opinion of whether or not Mary knew something was going to happen on April 14th. I always use the "picket story" in my replies, and tell them IMO Mary did indeed know something was about to go down. It makes little sense to me that a totally innocent woman would be that curious about when the pickets would depart (and would be glad to know they would be gone by the time Booth would be riding by).

How Weichmann could not testify about this has always been a major mystery to me. As Susan says, this is damning evidence (IMO). Thank you, Susan, for giving the possibilities for Weichmann leaving this out of his testimnoy. Pam, what do you think? I would love to get inside Weichmann's brain on this one and know for certain why this "picket information" never came out at trial.

Hi Roger, Weichmann explained in detail the emergence of his recollection and what he did about it in his book, p.167 (and I don't see why not take him at his word)
"I am very positive in regard to this affair, for it has made a lasting impression on my mind, one which will never be effaced. The circumstances came back to my recollection during the progress of the Conspiracy trial in 1865 after reading the testimony of other witnesses and during the summing up of the lawyers. I then related it to Mr. Benn Pitman, one of the stenographers of the court, who in turn communicated it to General Henry L. Burnett, one of the judge advocates, but the information came too late to be used as evidence by the Government.
"The following letter from General Burnett explains itself:
'Judge Advocates Office
Department of Ohio
Cincinnati, August 16, 1865

Louis J. Weichmann,
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Sir:

Your published statement contains one inaccuracy. It was not long before the trial that these additional statements were made known to me. They came to me, as you are aware, from Mr. Pitman from your statement to him. This was after the trial had closed as far as the evidence was concerned, and the arguments had been commenced.
Very respectfully, Your obedient servant, H.L. Burnett, Judge Advocate'.

"I did not at first comprehend the importance of this evidence. I can realize it's force now, especially when it is recollected that on that very night Booth and Herold, fresh from their bloody work, dashed down that road past the spot where the pickets had been, onto Surrattsville, on to Bryantown, to the Potomac, to Virginia, and finally to death.

"I, at first, thought that Mrs Surratt's action in reference to the pickets had been prompted by mere curiosity, but I am satisfied now that there was a deeper significance behind it, and that her questions to the old man were dictated by the desire to know if the road would be clear that night for Booth and Herold."

(05-23-2016 12:58 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  I think I made it pretty clear why I thought he could have felt guilty. Here's an example involving much less extreme circumstances: I complain about bad service in a restaurant, and I later find out that the waitress lost her job and has been evicted from her house because she could not pay the rent after losing her job. I would feel guilty, even though I was perfectly justified in complaining about bad service. (Before you jump on me for this, this is purely an example. I'm really quite easygoing about such things.) I think most decent people would feel some guilt about giving testimony that sent someone that they had been close to the gallows, even if their testimony was entirely truthful.

As for what I think Weichmann was untruthful about, I'm simply not convinced that he was unaware of John Surratt's clandestine activities, or that he did not provide him with any of the information he sought.

For Weichmann's searching for approval, his letter to Bingham is certainly a good example: "You, more than any man alive to-day, are aware of the meed of praise to which I am entitled for the sacrifices I made and for the work I did in connection with that great trial of 1865. I am writing the history of that affair now and will have it published some day, either during my life time, or after my death. It will be written from the strict stand point of loyalty and truth. I have always felt that I would like to have some brief expression from you in writing as to what you think of the manner in which I performed my duty to the country and of the reward to which I am entitled in the estimation of all good people. As a matter of justice to me, will you not send me a kind letter expressing your views in that regard?"

What would you call summoning Creighton to his deathbed and writing that "he wished the people of this country to understand that in the great trial, and while on the witness stand, he told the truth and nothing but the truth" if not a final search for validation and approval?

And don't forget the Oldroyd book, for which Weichmann contributed the chapter on himself. In his correspondence with Oldroyd, he wrote on August 18, 1901, "I am pleased to hear that your book will place me all right in the minds of the public. That is what I desire above all else."

BTW, I'm actually quite sympathetic to Weichmann. He was a young man placed in a horrible position. And as a researcher I can't dislike anyone who saved future generations hours of deciphering handwriting by adopting the new technology of the typewriter.

So you are walking back your "consumed by guilt" comment to "could have felt guilty" and justifying it with a false equivalency in the waitress story. Got it.

I don't agree that the letter to Bingham you cite demonstrates Weichmann's searching for approval, at least not in the way you suggest. Through his life, Weichmann was slandered in the news by "journalists" at least every year around the anniversary of the conspiracy trial and executions. He rarely or never responded but decided he needed to set the record straight in his book for historical posterity. I think he was smart to ask for statements in his behalf from important figures from the trial because they carried more weight than if he just defended himself, although he did an effective job of that.

I think he believed that a deathbed statement carried weight, and he was conscious of the years of slander against his good name.

Here's an article that appeared in newspapers nationwide, July 17, 1885:

"Old Story Revived
Louis J. Weichmann has been appointed to the civil service board in Philadelphia. The appointment took place in the same week with the anniversary of the hanging. Twenty years ago Tuesday, the 7th inst. (?) of Mrs. Surratt and the other conspirators in the assassination of President Lincoln. Weichmann was the witnessupon whose testimonyMrs. Surratt was convicted. He had been a theological student with John Surratt in 1859: boarded with the Surratts while a clerkm in the war department, and was treated like a brother and son. He met Booth the same day John Surratt did, being introduced by Dr. Mudd. With Surratt and Atzerodt he went to Ford's theater to hear Booth as pescara in the 'Apostate'. Payne, the fellow who stabbed Secretary Seward, was a guest of Weichman's at the Surratt house, and it was at his request that Payne was harbored in the house. The two occupied the same room and slept in the same bed. The first night Payne was there Weichmann went down to the kitchen, got supper for him, and took it up to his bedroom. Weichmann used to go to church regularly with Mrs. Surratt, being as she was, a devout Catholic. It was Weichmann who drove Mrs. Surratt to Surrattsville the day of the assassination, when the carbines were taken there for Booth and Herold. The lawyers and the public were generally a good deal puzzled by Weichmann's testimony, whether he was a detective watching the Surratts or a badly frightened coward and conspirator. Weichmann has never said anything additional about the conspiracy, although he had the opportunity a few years ago when Mr. Clampitt, one of the attorneys for Mrs. Surratt, accused him in the pages of North American review, of deliberately swearing away a woman's life."

Suit yourself. I've said I believed that most of what Weichmann said was truthful, expressed sympathy for him, and given an analogy from everyday life (since most of us don't have the experience of testifying at capital murder trials) as to why one can still do the right thing and feel guilty. I can either keep responding to this conversation politely and keep being snapped at, or I can declutter my house in preparation for moving. I'll listen to my real estate agent and declutter.

(05-23-2016 05:19 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  How Weichmann could not testify about this has always been a major mystery to me. As Susan says, this is damning evidence (IMO). Thank you, Susan, for giving the possibilities for Weichmann leaving this out of his testimnoy. Pam, what do you think? I would love to get inside Weichmann's brain on this one and know for certain why this "picket information" never came out at trial.

Pamela, I would like to get your assessment on this, too - sorry if I didn't get it in your last reply. Thanks!

Hi Eva, did you read post #36? Weichmann did try to get the pickets story in as evidence during the trial. His description of the event and his recollection and changing realization of it's significance are all discussed, p 167, Weichmann.

Pamela, in addition to reading the contents of Henry Burnett's letter to Weichmann written nearly six weeks after the executions (cited page 167), has your research shown clarification on what is somewhat confusing: Burnett's letter makes it sound like Weichmann tried to get word about the pickets to the military commission before/during the trial via Benn Pitman, but Pitman did not tell Burnett until after the trial had closed.

On page 166 of Weichmann's own narrative, however, he admits that the pickets' story did not occur to him until he read other details about the case and was not stated by him in the Conspiracy Trial of 1865 - just presented in a printed statement in July 1865 and later at the John Surratt trial.

I am not a supporter of Mrs. Surratt's total innocence, but Weichmann's manuscript has always struck me as self-vindication in terms of the perceived stretching of details to justify his role. Like Susan, I can also understand his tendency to do so. All of us are known at times to stretch or retract in order to present ourselves in a better light.

Also, if you will, please satisfy this old lady's curiosity and tell us when and why you became so entrenched in the Weichmann story.

(05-24-2016 03:04 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Also, if you will, please satisfy this old lady's curiosity and tell us when and why you became so entrenched in the Weichmann story.

Should be...

"Also, if you will, please satisfy this old lady's curiosity and tell us when and why you became so entrenched in the Weichmann story."

I am the same age as you.

(05-24-2016 03:09 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 03:04 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Also, if you will, please satisfy this old lady's curiosity and tell us when and why you became so entrenched in the Weichmann story.

Should be...

"Also, if you will, please satisfy this old lady's curiosity and tell us when and why you became so entrenched in the Weichmann story."

I am the same age as you.

Oops... best not to insult the forum master! Actually folks, Roger is about one month older than I.

(05-24-2016 01:58 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Hi Eva, did you read post #36? Weichmann did try to get the pickets story in as evidence during the trial. His description of the event and his recollection and changing realization of it's significance are all discussed, p 167, Weichmann.

Thanks, Pamela - I'm afraid I overlooked that first post of two in a row on my smartphone screen!

Laurie, in response to your question about my being "entrenched" in the Weichmann story, I blame Floyd Risvold. Actually, I thank him. He wrote a beautiful little note in my book to a Bill Biermann that reads, "May your time be well spent reading this historical narrative for you will be walking in the footsteps of Louis Weichmann through the pages of history." It set an intriguing mood for me to enjoy the book. Weichmann himself couldn't have picked a better editor. Unlike some on this forum, I am not a southern or Confederate sympathizer, and I view Weichmann and his testimony and book in a different , and I believe more accurate light.

For example, Susan said Weichmann was "consumed" with guilt. She back pedaled when I challenged her, to "a sense of guilt" and then hedged with, "Could have felt guilty". There is nothing in his writings or statements to suggest that he felt guilty about his testimony, or if there is please enlighten me. He was sorry for her fate, but he didn't make the decisions about punishment. He said this to introduce his response to Brophy:

"When living I did everything for her that was in my power. I testified to her character nobly. I plead for her day after day with those in authority, that they night spare her life, because she was a woman, and because she had been kind to me once. It was in vain. The government knows best, and must make a dread end just example to terrify all enemies to free government.

Yet, after all this, an attempt has been made by one BROPHY, in Washington, to blacken my character. To silence him, and many other sympathizers with guilt, I deem it necessary to present the following to the public. Let them judge and decide fairly.

I am, Sirs, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

LOUlS J. WEICHMANN."

He was, n fact, her best character witness in the trial. His conscience was clear, but I believe the entire horrible set of events was traumatizing for him as it would be for anyone who lived in that house and cared for the inhabitants. The thing that some around here seem to miss was that Weichmann also loved his country and his President.

Susan then went on to say he spent the rest of his life searching for approval. To me, that says more about her bias then Weichmann's mindset and life.

I realize that I seem to be the only one on this forum that challenges biased and unsubstantiated statements like the ones Susan made, so I guess that makes me "entrenched".