The original article in the Critic quotes Richards as stating that the stage was "entirely" free of all persons. The reprinted version in We Saw Lincoln Shot mistakenly renders "entirely" as "nearly." See column 7:

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/s...d-1/seq-1/

(That's why I prefer to check originals whenever possible. Mistakes do creep in.)

As for Grant, you're quoting quite selectively. Later in the article, Richards states that "in a few seconds word went round that General Grant had been shot," which suggests that the audience thought that the person shot had been Grant. The Presidential party, however, had entered the theater late and with fanfare, and with Major Rathbone and Clara Harris in the place of the Grants, so the audience at that point was well aware that Grant was not in the theater, whatever Richards himself might have supposed when he entered the theater.

Incidentally, J. B. Stewart in his April 15 statement makes no mention of meeting Richards at the theater after the assassination.

I've read Richards' letters to Weichmann. Interestingly, as Richards himself admitted to Weichmann, McDevitt was adamant at the time of the Richards-Weichmann correspondence that Richards had not been at the boardinghouse after the assassination, and McDevitt didn't place him there in his 1865 testimony either. In fact, none of the four men who came to the boardinghouse place Richards there, IIRC.

Again, Richards knew there was one actor on the stage when the shot was fired. The entire country knew it and probably half of the world. As you know, reporters can misquote and make mistakes. Do you really think that Richards didn't know that Hawkes was on the stage? And that not knowing, felt comfortable coming up with-noone was on the stage!
Another again, Richards knew that Grant wasn't there that night. I wouldn't rule out that in the surreal first moments after the shot a few people may have thought of Grant since killing the president was unimaginable. This part of Richard's account only makes it more credible.
Not surprising that Stewart didn't mention Richards. He wanted to be the hero or almost hero.
The McDevitt issue was interesting in the way it evolved over time in the letters and that Richards concluded that there were two visits by police that night, the first was Richards without McDevitt. I certainly understand why you want to invalidate Richards since his observations don't support Mary who you depict as a romance heroine on the cover of Hanging Mary. I didn't know who it was at first because I didn't realize that Mary had blonde ringlets.

(07-06-2016 10:37 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Again, Richards knew there was one actor on the stage when the shot was fired. The entire country knew it and probably half of the world. As you know, reporters can misquote and make mistakes. Do you really think that Richards didn't know that Hawkes was on the stage? And that not knowing, felt comfortable coming up with-noone was on the stage!
Another again, Richards knew that Grant wasn't there that night. I wouldn't rule out that in the surreal first moments after the shot a few people may have thought of Grant since killing the president was unimaginable. This part of Richard's account only makes it more credible.
Not surprising that Stewart didn't mention Richards. He wanted to be the hero or almost hero.
The McDevitt issue was interesting in the way it evolved over time in the letters and that Richards concluded that there were two visits by police that night, the first was Richards without McDevitt. I certainly understand why you want to invalidate Richards since his observations don't support Mary who you depict as a romance heroine on the cover of Hanging Mary. I didn't know who it was at first because I didn't realize that Mary had blonde ringlets.

I don't particularly want to "invalidate Richards." I just find it rather hard to believe that it took a man in his position 20 years to mention such critical evidence of Mary's guilt when Secretary Stanton would have been quite happy to learn of such evidence in 1865. (Weichmann himself would have appreciated knowing of this evidence when he was having his exchange with Brophy that summer.) For that matter, Richards' testimony about being in the theater and about questioning the "colored boy" (his words) would have probably strengthened the case against Spangler. If all of what he recalled in 1885 and afterward was true, it certainly doesn't say much for Richards' competence that he failed to bring it to the government's attention at the time of the trial. I see no reason why the government would have suppressed evidence that was favorable to its case.

My book cover was designed by the publisher, not by me (authors, except for self-published authors, have little say in cover design), and the idea in designing a cover for a historical novel is not to literally depict a historical figure but to evoke a mood and draw the reader's eye.

I obtained a copy of the 1906 interview that a reporter for the Ravenna (Ohio) Republican did with Richards. In this version, when Richards arrives at the theater around 10, the stage is empty, as if for a scenery change, and Lincoln is shot by Richards' estimation "a few moments after 10." Peanuts John is an Italian, and Atzerodt's intended target is Secretary Stanton.

Richards appears to have abandoned his theory of two visits to the Surratt boardinghouse. He arrives with a squad, is greeted by Mary Surratt, instructs his men to search the house, and leaves two to guard the house after finding no trace of Booth. Weichmann doesn't turn up at police headquarters until Sunday.

I wonder if we will ever know exactly what happened at Ford's Theater. Every time I read another "eye witness" report. it is different from all the others. For example. if the stage was empty, what happened to the actor who had just finished the "Sockdologizing" line?
That event was carefully timed so that the laughing would cover the sound of the shot. (or was that another murder?) Richards says that Booth lowered himself to the stage. Would that break a leg?
In the case of Richards, since he was chief off Police, he was going to protect he Police Dept. from any flack. He was going to show how quick he got there, how efficient his crew was, etc. etc.
Every time he opens his mouth - he proves he wasn't there.
I believe the "horse holder" more than I believe the Chief of Police.
Let's talk about the 7000 people who carried Lincoln across the street.

I know how publishing works, I'm married to an author, but it seems to me the evoked mood veers faaaar from reality. If I wrote a Weichmann book and the cover was Favio or some romance hero with rippling six pack abs I can only imagine the uproar that would ensue. Would you approve?
Who knows? Was Peanuts of Italian descent? Do you know he wasn't? It sounds like Richards was only discussing his visit to the Surratt house. I thought the assassination was around 10:00.
After Stanton reamed him, Richards clearly decided to distance himself from the case, and Stanton and Burnett knew and apparently were OK with that. See The Evidence, p. 1098, A.C. Richards:"I have the honor to report that I have no testimony in my possession, nor have I taken any relative to the assassination of the late President. I have a hat which is supposed to belong to the late President, also a hat supposed to have been worn by the assassin, Booth, also a spur supposed to have been worn by Booth and can be delivered at any time upon your receipt for them for my own protection." The conclusion, "for my own protection", speaks volumes.

Obviously at the very least, he took testimony from the key witness, Weichmann, and Stanton and Burnett knew it (the letter was sent to Burnett). Richards knew that Weichmann, then in custody, would continue to be forthcoming with all the information he had, and at Richard's orders the case had been advanced.

---

I want to add, Burnett also had occasion to react to Stanton's fury and it was over Weichmann, p224-225, Weichmann. Burnett resigned, but Stanton apologized and Burnett withdrew his resignation.

"Was Peanuts of Italian descent?"

This is actually part of the folklore of the assassination. In the first half of the 20th century, there was a D.C. gentleman (probably what we call a "street person" today) who advertised cough drops on the streets while also claiming to have been Peanuts John in the alley in 1865. I have talked to several old-timers who remembered him in the 1920s and 30s.

Cough Drop Joe Ratto was Italian, and the gentlemen who had met him said that he claimed he had a bump on his head from where Booth had struck him with the butt of his knife while mounting the mare in the alley.

I remember, when I first heard the story, that I didn't think there was much of an Italian immigrant community in D.C. during the Civil War. The little research I did showed that the area did not attract Italian workers because it was a government town, not a factory town. The main wave of Italians came from 1880 to 1920, when the skilled stonemasons and artists were in demand for the booming construction that the government buildings brought on.

(07-08-2016 10:29 AM)L Verge Wrote:  In the first half of the 20th century, there was a D.C. gentleman (probably what we call a "street person" today) who advertised cough drops on the streets while also claiming to have been Peanuts John in the alley in 1865. I have talked to several old-timers who remembered him in the 1920s and 30s.

Here is a photo:

Interesting about cough drop Joey Ratto. Could he have been the inspiration for the character Ratso Rizzo, played by Dustin Hoffman in Midnight Cowboy? Ratso was a street person, had a bad cough and was sickly. Jon Voight's character was named Joe.

Guess we would have to interview the person who wrote the screenplay and find out whether he/she knew the many sidebars and legends to the Lincoln assassination story.

"As for Grant, you're quoting quite selectively. Later in the article, Richards states that "in a few seconds word went round that General Grant had been shot," which suggests that the audience thought that the person shot had been Grant. The Presidential party, however, had entered the theater late and with fanfare, and with Major Rathbone and Clara Harris in the place of the Grants, so the audience at that point was well aware that Grant was not in the theater, whatever Richards himself might have supposed when he entered the theater."


Regarding Grant not being in the theater as strike against A.C. Richards for "concocting" his presence at Ford's the night of the assassination, I found this in The Evidence, p 487, statement made by James P. Ferguson, April 18, 1865: "I was talking with Harry Ford in the daytime and he said,"'Jim, your favorite is going to be in the theater tonight, and if you want to see him you must go and see him and secure a seat.'"....After the curtain raised, the President and his wife, Miss Harris, and a gentleman dressed in citizen's clothes came in. I knew that he was not Grant. It was my opinion that Grant had remained outside probably for an hour or two to come in all alone, so as not to create any excitement in the theater. I made up my mind that nobody should go into that box, without I saw whether it was Grant...."
It is reasonable to suppose that many Union supporters in the theater that night were hopeful that Grant would arrive at some point, and as Ferguson said, would not wish to draw attention to himself. Hence Richard's statement, that initially word got around that Grant had been shot is supported by another witness who thought and hoped that Grant was there, despite clearly seeing the Presidential party arrive without Grant.

(07-08-2016 10:29 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Cough Drop Joe Ratto was Italian, and the gentlemen who had met him said that he claimed he had a bump on his head from where Booth had struck him with the butt of his knife while mounting the mare in the alley.

The exact same thing happened to me!

(07-06-2016 02:02 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  The original article in the Critic quotes Richards as stating that the stage was "entirely" free of all persons. The reprinted version in We Saw Lincoln Shot mistakenly renders "entirely" as "nearly." See column 7:

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/s...d-1/seq-1/

(That's why I prefer to check originals whenever possible. Mistakes do creep in.)

As for Grant, you're quoting quite selectively. Later in the article, Richards states that "in a few seconds word went round that General Grant had been shot," which suggests that the audience thought that the person shot had been Grant. The Presidential party, however, had entered the theater late and with fanfare, and with Major Rathbone and Clara Harris in the place of the Grants, so the audience at that point was well aware that Grant was not in the theater, whatever Richards himself might have supposed when he entered the theater.

Incidentally, J. B. Stewart in his April 15 statement makes no mention of meeting Richards at the theater after the assassination.

I've read Richards' letters to Weichmann. Interestingly, as Richards himself admitted to Weichmann, McDevitt was adamant at the time of the Richards-Weichmann correspondence that Richards had not been at the boardinghouse after the assassination, and McDevitt didn't place him there in his 1865 testimony either. In fact, none of the four men who came to the boardinghouse place Richards there, IIRC.

Susan. Did you ever read the "The Original Atzerodt Confession"? Surrratt Courier Oct 1988. Atzerodt never said that they were going to mine the White House. He said they were going to Mine the Kirk House. Can anyon explain that one? NO GUSSES. Plez
Pardon my spelling "Guesses" JFS

(07-02-2016 09:48 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 11:20 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Richards described those events because of what he had read in chapter 15 of Weichmann's book, and said that Stewart's account of events and testimony were largely imagined and not accurate.

I also wonder about the validity of Richards' account. Personally I do not know of any contemporary evidence that he was present at Ford's Theatre when the President was shot (other than Richards' own word that he was).

Richards says he was there, but was he?

According to Good's book, Richards' "revelation" that he was there came on April 17, 1885, which is 20 years after the event. Captain Reed, who could have verified Richards' presence, is deceased. So is Stewart dead by this time. Richards also says in his account that Peanut John was a black boy. In other discussions we've had, it seems the evidence is quite conclusive that Peanut John was white. Richards claims Mary Lincoln yelled "guerillas" after the shot; as far as I know, no one else made this claim. Richards said he thought Booth yelled "Sic semper tyrannis" twice while on the stage; I think the vast majority of other accounts have Booth yelling this once.

If anyone can provide contemporary evidence that Richards really was in the theater when Lincoln was shot then I will stand corrected in my suspicions.

Richards said Mary called out something he couldn't understand but he made out the word "guerillas". If she said that, it's interesting because I guess the attacks fell under that name and because Powell was a guerilla fighter with Mosby.

I don't know how many police were at Ford theater that night. Checking The Evidence, I didn't come across any statements made by police who were witnesses. Charles Forbes was there part of the time. Of course A.C. Richards said he and Capt. Reed, also a member of the Metropolitan Police were in the theater. Richards said Stewart made it onto the stage first and that he also reached the stage, possibly with one or two others. Stewart said this, "I then went back into the theater meeting some person coming out as I went in who went off in the direction the horse had gone. I believe these persons were in the police corps." P 1015, The Evidence.

Perhaps "these persons...in the police corps" were Richards and Reed. Stewart would have put Richards approximately where and when he, Richards, said he was. Richards had ordered Stewart arrested for fraud sometime in the recent past and he may not have been eager to acknowledge him by name.

(07-09-2016 09:41 PM)SSlater Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 02:02 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  The original article in the Critic quotes Richards as stating that the stage was "entirely" free of all persons. The reprinted version in We Saw Lincoln Shot mistakenly renders "entirely" as "nearly." See column 7:

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/s...d-1/seq-1/

(That's why I prefer to check originals whenever possible. Mistakes do creep in.)

As for Grant, you're quoting quite selectively. Later in the article, Richards states that "in a few seconds word went round that General Grant had been shot," which suggests that the audience thought that the person shot had been Grant. The Presidential party, however, had entered the theater late and with fanfare, and with Major Rathbone and Clara Harris in the place of the Grants, so the audience at that point was well aware that Grant was not in the theater, whatever Richards himself might have supposed when he entered the theater.

Incidentally, J. B. Stewart in his April 15 statement makes no mention of meeting Richards at the theater after the assassination.

I've read Richards' letters to Weichmann. Interestingly, as Richards himself admitted to Weichmann, McDevitt was adamant at the time of the Richards-Weichmann correspondence that Richards had not been at the boardinghouse after the assassination, and McDevitt didn't place him there in his 1865 testimony either. In fact, none of the four men who came to the boardinghouse place Richards there, IIRC.

Susan. Did you ever read the "The Original Atzerodt Confession"? Surrratt Courier Oct 1988. Atzerodt never said that they were going to mine the White House. He said they were going to Mine the Kirk House. Can anyon explain that one? NO GUSSES. Plez
Pardon my spelling "Guesses" JFS

First, I think your question, John, was posted under the wrong subject since it pertains to the mining of the White House, not the activities of A.C. Richards. However...

We can only GUESS at this, John, because we can't dig up George and ask him what he told the authorities. I am at home and do not have the statement in front of me (and am too lazy to google). If the word truly is KIRK, and not WHITE, I can GUESS only a few things: Whoever was taking down the statement could not understand George's accent and wrote KIRK, assuming that the Vice President was the target and he lived at the KIRKWOOD House. OR, the KIRKWOOD was the target for the explosives because Johnson lived there AND because Powell also had stayed there and could assist Harney?

That would make sense to me as to why George did not expect and did not want to have to shoot anyone personally?? He had thought all along that he was hired for the get-away, not for the immediate action.

If the word truly is KIRK, how have we missed it for all these years?