(07-23-2016 10:23 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Thanks, Jill!

Thank you, Jill, (I didn't want to type that again.) however, my offer of the Typed coy stands. I just need an address. SSlater

Thank you very much, Jill!

I have a question. Previously I had missed the fact that Richards said he was sitting in the dress circle.

Quoting from the article: "Going up into the dress circle I took a seat at the right which gave me a good view of the auditorium."

Stewart was sitting in the first row of the orchestra level. With all the commotion in the theater how could Richards possibly have caught up with Stewart? If I am picturing the theater correctly, Stewart would have had a big head start on Richards.

Also, of the others who were close by (theater employees, actors, actresses, etc.) who else identified Richards as having crossed the stage and entered the alley? Other than Richards himself, does anyone else mention him in their statement(s)?

I believe the emphasis was on identifying the doctors who tried to help Lincoln, and the whereabouts of actors and employees of the theater, and who else Booth assaulted. Stewart attracted attention because he was the first on stage and because of his enormous size and clothing. I read in more than one account that others quickly followed Stewart onto the stage. It is not hard for me to imagine that while many in the audience were frozen in uncertainty and shock, the police supervisor could have rushed from the dress circle to the stage. It has been said here that no mention was made by Stewart of Richard's presence, but I found that Stewart stated to Judge Olin within hours of the event, that two members of the "police corps" were exiting the theater at the alley door in close proximity to Stewart. Stewart made that acknowledgement I would say, grudgingly, after his imaginary account of heroism in his solo pursuit of Booth. At that point, Stewart and Richard's stories jive.

There is an overwhelming case made by John Fazio against Stewart's story, so if we eliminate Stewart's moonlit tale of a Booth chase, we have Stewart and two members of the police corps at the alley door asking which direction the assailant went, as Richards said. You might find it interesting and amusing to read Stewart's cross examination in the John Surratt trial, and the ridiculous degree of Stewart's meteorological, atmospheric and gas lit observations. It seemed to me that the lawyers on both sides were mocking him:

P. 987 (Pierrepont) Q." Do you recollect at all the conditions of the clouds--how far the heavens were overspread with clouds?" In response to another question Stewart said, A. "I do not know the astronomical range or mode of expression, and therefore cannot say more." (He had already been goaded into saying quite alot) "The moon was plainly visible. It was up sufficently high to begin to reflect a considerable amount of light upon the earth. Of course it was not as clear as it could have been in the absence of such a haze as overshadowed it." Q. "did you make any memorandum of the condition of the moon that night?" A. "I had no occasion to make a memorandum, but I have a very strong recollection in my mind."

(07-13-2016 04:52 PM)Wesley Harris Wrote:  There's definitely plenty of assassination knives. The National Park Service has "the" knife on display. But wait, 30 years ago, they had a completely different blade on display as "the" knife. Then there's about six other knives associated with the assassination investigation, three of which are almost identical to "the" knife originally displayed at Ford's. The knife labeled as Atzerodt's at Ford's is most likely Herold's, which was found in the room at the Kirkwood House where Herold left his. At his death, Booth may have had one, two, or three knives with him, depending on which account you believe. What police today consider a relatively simple matter--maintaining the "chain of custody" to permit later identification of an item--was a foreign to 1860s criminal investigation.

Thanks for all the knife info. I came across this statement made by Peanuts to Judge Olin in the hours after the assassination, April 15 1865 : "The knife he (Booth) had is the one I have seen him use on the stage." Did Booth use a real knife on the stage at Ford's?

(07-24-2016 10:35 PM)Pamela Wrote:  I came across this statement made by Peanuts to Judge Olin in the hours after the assassination, April 15 1865 : "The knife he (Booth) had is the one I have seen him use on the stage." Did Booth use a real knife on the stage at Ford's?

I cannot recall the source, but I think I read somewhere that Peanuts was a relatively new employee. If true, this must be a reference to Booth's role as Duke Pescara (March 18, 1865). I know nothing about the Apostate. Does anyone know if Booth used a knife in his role as Duke Pescara?

(07-25-2016 04:45 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(07-24-2016 10:35 PM)Pamela Wrote:  I came across this statement made by Peanuts to Judge Olin in the hours after the assassination, April 15 1865 : "The knife he (Booth) had is the one I have seen him use on the stage." Did Booth use a real knife on the stage at Ford's?

I cannot recall the source, but I think I read somewhere that Peanuts was a relatively new employee. If true, this must be a reference to Booth's role as Duke Pescara (March 18, 1865). I know nothing about the Apostate. Does anyone know if Booth used a knife in his role as Duke Pescara?

The only knife Booth used on stage that I've heard of was a "prop" knife with a spring in it allowing the blade to retract. It sold in the Franklyn Lenthall auction from his Boothbay Theatre Museum in 1988. Dr John Lattimer bought it, and it sold again (Lot 61208) in a Heritage Auction in November 20, 2008.

(07-23-2016 02:03 PM)Pamela Wrote:  

(07-03-2016 07:37 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  In the same 1885 interview (in the April 17, 1885 Washington Critic) in which Richards claimed to have been at the theater, he also claimed to have gone to Mary Surratt's house on the evening of the assassination and found her in her usual dress, with no appearance of having retired for the evening. I simply don't believe that Richards would have suppressed such incriminating evidence in 1865 had it been true.

It's also noteworthy that in the 1885 account, Richards has the stage empty when Lincoln is shot, and also has Grant at the theater, as he claims that, "In a few seconds word went round that General Grant had been shot. Then we had it that President Lincoln had been shot."

I think Richards was suffering from "rubber room" syndrome.

The Trial of John Surratt, p 696, testimony of John Clarvoe: A. I went to the house with McDevitt, Lieutenant Skippon and others. McDevitt, myself, and Lieutenant Skippon entered the house after putting guard at the back and at each corner. We went up and knocked at the door. The door was opened by a man barefoot, in his shirt sleeves, and bareheaded. I asked him if John Surratt was in.
Q. Who was that man?
A. He gave me his name as Weichmann. Said he: No sir, he is not in the city. Said I: His mother is in. Does she live here?

Clarvoe knew that Mary was in the house because A. C. Richards had visited the house earlier with Clarvoe or others, and if Clarvoe wasn't there, he was told about the visit, as Richards stated in one of his letters to Weichmann.

Interesting, but given the strange syntax, I think he probably said, or meant to say, "His mother lives here. Is she in?"

Compare McDevitt's testimony from the same trial:

"Q. Will you state whether on the night of the ]4th of April, 1865, or the morning of the 15th, you took any steps to discover and arrest the assassins of the President?
A. I did. I received information that J. Wilkes Booth had fired the shot.
Q. Did you go to the house of Mrs. Surratt?
A. I did.
Q. Who went with you?
A. Lientenant Charles M. Skippon, sixth precinct, then sergeant of the precinct, and a squad of his men, Mr. Clarvoe and myself, and Mr. Donaldson, one of our detective officers.
Q. State at what time you arrived there, and give as well as you recollect a narrative of the incidents that occurred.
A. I think after the bell was rung, a lady [Mrs. Holohan] put her head out of the second story window—that is the window over the parlor—and asked us who it was. We asked for Mrs. Surratt, if she lived there; she said, she did; we said, we wish to come in immediately; the door was then opened by Mr. Weichmann; he was dressed in his shirt sleeves, and I think he was in his stocking feet; his shirt was open in the bosom; I think he had one suspender on, but I am not certain; we asked for John Surratt; he said, he was not at home; we found a shawl lying there in the passage, and asked whose shawl that was. It was covered with mud."

It also strikes me as very unlikely that Richards would bring a party of men to the boardinghouse, speak to Mary Surratt, find her behavior and appearance suspicious, and then leave without waking the sleeping Weichmann and the other boarders for questioning. For all Richards knew at that point, the sleeping man might have been John Surratt--and Richards' leaving would give Mary the opportunity to coach the other occupants of the house, especially her daughter, her niece, and Nora Fitzpatrick, in what to tell police in case they returned.

Susan, I've read McDevitt's testimony several times and I don't find that it contradicts Clarvoe's. I also find nothing wrong with the syntax and don't think it's appropriate to change verbiage of trial transcripts. To coin a phrase, it is what it is.

It's reasonable to imagine that Richards didn't have his A team with him and just weren't aggressive enough with a cool customer like Mary who played the genteel lady card to advantage. Not long afterwards, Richards or maybe Clarvoe decided the house and it's occupants needed a thorough rousting. Clearly, Mary made some play acting choices and they weren't good ones.

(07-28-2016 02:43 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Susan, I've read McDevitt's testimony several times and I don't find that it contradicts Clarvoe's. I also find nothing wrong with the syntax and don't think it's appropriate to change verbiage of trial transcripts. To coin a phrase, it is what it is.

It's reasonable to imagine that Richards didn't have his A team with him and just weren't aggressive enough with a cool customer like Mary who played the genteel lady card to advantage. Not long afterwards, Richards or maybe Clarvoe decided the house and it's occupants needed a thorough rousting. Clearly, Mary made some play acting choices and they weren't good ones.

Oh, dear. No one was changing the trial transcripts, simply suggesting that Clarvoe misspoke or that the court reporter made a slight error. It does happen, really.

Clarvoe's testimony aside, Richards' going to the Surratt boardinghouse with a force of detectives in search of Booth and John Surratt, learning from an officer that a man was asleep in his room, and letting him slumber sweetly on despite his suspicions about the landlady's appearance and demeanor strikes me as grossly incompetent, which is one of several reasons (no reason to reiterate the others here), I don't find his postwar recollections to be credible. I'll leave it at that.

(07-28-2016 03:24 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 02:43 PM)Pamela Wrote:  Susan, I've read McDevitt's testimony several times and I don't find that it contradicts Clarvoe's. I also find nothing wrong with the syntax and don't think it's appropriate to change verbiage of trial transcripts. To coin a phrase, it is what it is.

It's reasonable to imagine that Richards didn't have his A team with him and just weren't aggressive enough with a cool customer like Mary who played the genteel lady card to advantage. Not long afterwards, Richards or maybe Clarvoe decided the house and it's occupants needed a thorough rousting. Clearly, Mary made some play acting choices and they weren't good ones.

Oh, dear. No one was changing the trial transcripts, simply suggesting that Clarvoe misspoke or that the court reporter made a slight error. It does happen, really.

Clarvoe's testimony aside, Richards' going to the Surratt boardinghouse with a force of detectives in search of Booth and John Surratt, learning from an officer that a man was asleep in his room, and letting him slumber sweetly on despite his suspicions about the landlady's appearance and demeanor strikes me as grossly incompetent, which is one of several reasons (no reason to reiterate the others here), I don't find his postwar recollections to be credible. I'll leave it at that.

I'm chiming in only to agree with Susan's assessment and to say that the questions surrounding Richards may be the reason that quite a few of the learned historians in the field give no significant attention to the Chief.

Susan, the trial transcript bothered you, and the reason you gave is syntax.

Clarvoe:
A. He gave me his name as Weichmann. Said he: No sir, he is not in the city. Said I: His mother is in. Does she live here?

Susan Higginbotham:
Interesting, but given the strange syntax, I think he probably said, or meant to say, "His mother lives here. Is she in?"

Then you thought it helpful to compare McDevitt's testimony from the same trial, but in reality, it doesn't support your argument:

McDevitt:
"We asked for Mrs. Surratt, if she lived there;...."

Your syntax solution negates what both detectives said, which was questioning if Mary lived there, not stating it as a fact. The trial transcript is probably best left untampered with, because the changes you make reverse what both detectives said.

However, you might want to consider syntax problems in another portion of the transcript. Perhaps Lloyd, who was a drunk, misheard or misspoke the phrase, or the transcriber miswrote "shooting irons". Maybe Mary said "shining irons" or "ironing boards". What a difference that would have made!

(07-29-2016 09:58 AM)Pamela Wrote:  Perhaps Lloyd, who was a drunk, misheard or misspoke the phrase, or the transcriber miswrote "shooting irons". Maybe Mary said "shining irons" or "ironing boards". What a difference that would have made!

Pam, when I read this it reminded me of a question I asked over four years ago. I was curious what might have happened had Lloyd not testified at all. The majority of folks thought Mary would still have been found guilty but given a lesser sentence.

http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...ad-74.html

(07-29-2016 09:58 AM)Pamela Wrote:  Susan, the trial transcript bothered you, and the reason you gave is syntax.

Clarvoe:
A. He gave me his name as Weichmann. Said he: No sir, he is not in the city. Said I: His mother is in. Does she live here?

Susan Higginbotham:
Interesting, but given the strange syntax, I think he probably said, or meant to say, "His mother lives here. Is she in?"

Then you thought it helpful to compare McDevitt's testimony from the same trial, but in reality, it doesn't support your argument:

McDevitt:
"We asked for Mrs. Surratt, if she lived there;...."

Your syntax solution negates what both detectives said, which was questioning if Mary lived there, not stating it as a fact. The trial transcript is probably best left untampered with, because the changes you make reverse what both detectives said.

However, you might want to consider syntax problems in another portion of the transcript. Perhaps Lloyd, who was a drunk, misheard or misspoke the phrase, or the transcriber miswrote "shooting irons". Maybe Mary said "shining irons" or "ironing boards". What a difference that would have made!

I don't see the discrepancy myself if Clarvoe's syntax is corrected. The two detectives speak to Mrs. Holohan, who's looking out her window, and ask her if Mrs. Surratt lives there.

"A. I think after the bell was rung, a lady [Mrs. Holohan] put her head out of the second story window—that is the window over the parlor—and asked us who it was. We asked for Mrs. Surratt, if she lived there; she said, she did . . ."

Just after they receive their affirmative answer from Mrs. Holohan, Weichmann opens the door:

"we said, we wish to come in immediately; the door was then opened by Mr. Weichmann; he was dressed in his shirt sleeves . . ."

No need to ask Weichmann at that point if Mrs. Surratt lives there, since they just got that information from Mrs. Holohan, only if she is in. Hence my suggestion of "His mother lives here. Is she in?"

But if Richards had indeed been there before them, and had left a contingent of detectives guarding the place (as I think he says in one of his Weichmann letters), why would McDevitt and Clarvoe need to ask either question? They would know from Richards that Mary lived there, and they would know from their colleagues that she hadn't left the house.

It's not mere syntax, however, that makes me doubt Richards' story of meeting with Mary. First, as I mentioned earlier, I have the utmost difficulty believing that a competent chief of police investigating a presidential assassination would go to a house which the assassin was known to frequent, talk to a landlady who expressed no surprise at the assassination and who had plainly been waiting for someone, and leave without searching the place or interrogating any of the rest of the occupants, particularly the sleeping Weichmann and Mr. Holohan. (Contrast this with the visit by McDevitt et al, where the entire place was searched and everyone, including the servants and the young Holohan girl, was roused from his or her bed.) Second, I have even more difficulty believing that Richards would suppress such important evidence of Mary's guilt if he possessed it in 1865; I'm not convinced by the argument that he was trying to distance himself from the investigation. Third, assuming that Richards did give the government the information, I can think of no reason whatsoever why the government wouldn't make use of it at the conspiracy trial; the guilty verdict against Mary wasn't a foregone conclusion. And fourth, not a single person, not even Richards himself until 20 years after the fact, puts Richards at the boardinghouse. Certainly the most logical place for him to be would be at police headquarters, directing operations.

(07-29-2016 12:11 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  a competent chief of police investigating a presidential assassination

I would also ask why, if the chief of police were really an eyewitness to John F. Parker's negligence on April 14th, was the case against Parker dismissed on June 2nd? Did Richards really do anything regarding Parker beyond signing the specification against him? Did he seriously pursue the case?

And, if Richards was truly at Ford's, wouldn't he be the ranking law enforcement officer to take charge of calming the audience, observing the disposition of the dying President, rounding up theater personnel -- in other words, beginning an official crime investigation. Even common sense and my teacher training would make me do such a thing.