He was known as A. C. Richards and during the time of the assassination he was was the Superintendent of the Washington Metropolitan Police. I read the 1980 article written by Gary R. Planck in the 1980 Lincoln Herald. In it, Planck raised several questions about Richard's truthfulness. One question, was A. C. Richards a witness to the Lincoln assassination as he claimed? After pages of dissecting numerous eyewitness accounts and delving into the matter of the police officer, John F. Parker who was Lincoln's bodyguard that night, Plank said this:

"On May 1, 1865, A.C. Richards served a charge and specification on John F. Parker. 'Neglect of duty,' it read. 'In this, that Said Parker was detailed to attend and protect the President Mr. Lincoln, that while the President was at Ford's Theatre on the night of the 14th of April last, Said Parker allowed a man to enter the President's private Box and shoot the President.' Two witnesses were listed: one was A. C. Richards himself and the other was Charles Forbes. Richards must have observed something in the theater that would support his charge, for if the information had been secured from someone else, that individual would have been summoned as a witness. Also, Richards must have known that Forbes had observed something that would further substantiate the charge."

So, Richards was in the theater during the assassination.

Pam, I am sorry, but I am still missing something, and I remain in the "Ed Steers' camp"* regarding Richards' veracity on his presence at Ford's. What I am missing is how this specification against Parker proves Richards' presence. William H. Crook, another White House policeman, wrote:

"Had Parker been at his post at the back of the box - Booth still being determined to make the attempt that night - he (Parker) would have been stabbed, probably killed. The noise of the struggle - Parker could certainly have managed to make some outcry - would have given the alarm. Major Rathbone was a brave man, and the President was a brave man and of enormous muscular strength. It would have been an easy thing for the two men to have disarmed Booth, who was not a man of great physical strength. It was the suddenness of his attack on the President that made it so devilishly successful. It makes me feel rather bitter when I remember that the President had said, just a few hours before, that he knew he could trust all his guards. And to think in that one moment of test, one of us should have utterly failed him. Parker knew that he had failed in his duty. He looked like a convicted criminal the next day. He was never the same man afterward."

Is it not possible that Richards talked to Crook prior to May 1? Forbes could have signed the specification not knowing whether Richards was present or not. He was just doing what the police superintendent asked him to do.

In Forbes only known statement there is no mention of Richards being in the theater.

None of the assassination eyewitness accounts mention Richards by name as far as I can tell (other than Richards himself). If one exists and can be posted, I will stop being a skeptic.

*I should define "Ed Steers camp." John Fazio writes, "Steers believes it is 'doubtful' that Richards was even in the theater and chased Booth." John does not agree with Ed.

Roger, by your standard for having witnessed the assassination, which is being identified by name by someone else, who, in turn, was also identified by name as being present, then the were only about fifty people in the audience, maybe less, I haven't done the math.

(07-28-2016 07:04 AM)Pamela Wrote:  Roger, by your standard for having witnessed the assassination, which is being identified by name by someone else, who, in turn, was also identified by name as being present, then the were only about fifty people in the audience, maybe less, I haven't done the math.

Pamela:

In their desire, or need, to demonstrate objectivity, many historians have a tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water. In my judgment, this is such a case. The evidence for Richards's presence at Ford's on the night of April 14, 1865, is clear and convincing. It is also logical: Would we not expect the Chief of the Metropolitan Police to want to keep on eye on Ford's that night, knowing that the Lincolns and Grant were scheduled to be there and that one of his boys (Parker) was scheduled to guard the President? In any case, Richards's letter to Weichmann of June 10, 1898, all but nails it down. In it, he talks about what he did when he gained the stage and, most importantly, gives the lie to Stewart's tale about the dance he did with Booth and his horse in the alley behind the theater. Says Richards: "The gyrations Stewart describes as having participated in could not have taken place as there was no horse and rider then and there in sight". This is not the kind of statement one fabricates. It does nothing to benefit Richards or anyone else. It is therefore entitled to great weight.

John

John, regarding whether or not Richards was prone to fabrication, what is your opinion of the Orlando Sentinel article? (We discussed it in another thread.) Also, do you feel Ed Steers is simply wrong when he writes, "Richards gave several statements in the forty years following the assassination, all filled with inconsistencies and errors."

***************************************************************

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1987...kes-eustis

"Former Police Chief Richards provided more details about his involvement with the historic event during a 1900 talk at Clifford Hall, according to a letter written in 1958 by former Eustis resident M.B. Gault. The letter now is in the hands of the Lake County Historical Society.

Gault wrote: ''At one of the entertainments given by some group, a Col. Richards came on the stage and told how he had been posted behind the box in which President Lincoln sat when he was shot. He said he jumped through the front of the box to get Booth, who got away, but he found on the stage a Bowie knife that Booth was supposed to have lost. And he Richards showed us the knife.''

Roger, I know you're asking for John's thoughts, but this might help put Richards recollections into perspective:

Trial of John Surratt, Vol 2 p 988

(Richards questioned by Mr. Bradley about Weichmann)

Q. Were you at the examination at the arsenal?
A. I was not examined there.
Q. Were you there when he was examined?
A. I did not hear any of his examination on the stand.
Q. You have read his examination?
A. I have not. I may have glanced over it but not very particularly. I have never read the evidence given on the assassination trials.

(07-28-2016 08:17 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 07:04 AM)Pamela Wrote:  Roger, by your standard for having witnessed the assassination, which is being identified by name by someone else, who, in turn, was also identified by name as being present, then the were only about fifty people in the audience, maybe less, I haven't done the math.

Pamela:

In their desire, or need, to demonstrate objectivity, many historians have a tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water. In my judgment, this is such a case. The evidence for Richards's presence at Ford's on the night of April 14, 1865, is clear and convincing. It is also logical: Would we not expect the Chief of the Metropolitan Police to want to keep on eye on Ford's that night, knowing that the Lincolns and Grant were scheduled to be there and that one of his boys (Parker) was scheduled to guard the President? In any case, Richards's letter to Weichmann of June 10, 1898, all but nails it down. In it, he talks about what he did when he gained the stage and, most importantly, gives the lie to Stewart's tale about the dance he did with Booth and his horse in the alley behind the theater. Says Richards: "The gyrations Stewart describes as having participated in could not have taken place as there was no horse and rider then and there in sight". This is not the kind of statement one fabricates. It does nothing to benefit Richards or anyone else. It is therefore entitled to great weight.

John

And some historians manage to take one button and turn it into an overcoat without the proper thread...

If Richards were well-placed in DC, he would have known that Grant and wife had left earlier and would not be attending the theater. Assuming that he had not received the word, would he have not thought that Parker would not be needed since the military would give sufficient protection to their Commander-in-Chief and the head of the Union Army?

If Richards was truly seated in the dress circle, would he not be privy to the comings and goings to and from the President's box? Would he have not noticed that Parker sat down in the same area as he to watch the play? Would he have allowed this to happen? Wouldn't he have wondered why his "man" did not return to his post later? At this point, Richards was well-aware (if truly there) that neither Grant nor his military guards had shown up -- that made it doubly important that Parker be on guard. Would the Superintendent of Police ignore his man's absence?

As for his rendition of reaching the alley almost in tandem with Stewart, I find it very difficult to understand how Richards would be able to recognize the situation, react immediately, manage to get out of the dress circle and down those miserable spiral stairs into the lobby, go through the doors to the main floor, sprint through people who had to be starting to panic, cover the whole length of the theater, mount the stage and run its length to the rear door and get to the area AT THE SAME TIME that 6-foot, 5-inch Stewart, who is sitting in the front rows very near the stage, gets on the stage with ease and manages to see Booth riding away.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what causes me to suggest that Richards fabricated much of his later reminiscences -- pure logic. And I just managed to create a very long, run-on sentence in the above paragraph in order to express my version of the logic involved...

Thank you, and good night.

Laurie mentions Parker. I think the most peculiar thing regarding Parker is what happened afterwards. Otto Eisenschiml writes as follows:

"That Parker seriously failed in his duty during the performance of Our American Cousin is a matter beyond dispute, but it is not exactly known to what extent he was technically guilty. On May 1, 1865, A. C. Richards, superintendent of the Metropolitan Police Force, preferred charges of neglect of duty against him, the specification reading as follows:

In this, that Said Parker was detailed to attend and protect the President Mr. Lincoln, that while the President was at Fords Theatre on the night of the 14 of April last, Said Parker allowed a man to enter the Presidents private Box and Shoot the President.

As witnesses were cited A. C. Richards himself and Charles Forbes of the President's house.

The police archives afford no proof that Parker was really tried. If any transcripts of the case existed, they have been removed, and even the eventual findings of the Board are available only through subsequent records. These show that, although Parker was tried on May 3, the complaint was dismissed on June 2, 1865. The minutes of this trial before the Board would make one of the most interesting chapters in the story of Lincoln's assassination.

Can anyone offer an explanation of this? How in the world could all the information and details of what happened with this case against Parker mysteriously disappear?

The accuracy of Richards' April 17, 1885 account is particularly questionable - see Good's "We Saw Lincoln Shot".

---

(07-29-2016 04:18 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Laurie mentions Parker. I think the most peculiar thing regarding Parker is what happened afterwards. Otto Eisenschiml writes as follows:

"That Parker seriously failed in his duty during the performance of Our American Cousin is a matter beyond dispute, but it is not exactly known to what extent he was technically guilty. On May 1, 1865, A. C. Richards, superintendent of the Metropolitan Police Force, preferred charges of neglect of duty against him, the specification reading as follows:

In this, that Said Parker was detailed to attend and protect the President Mr. Lincoln, that while the President was at Fords Theatre on the night of the 14 of April last, Said Parker allowed a man to enter the Presidents private Box and Shoot the President.

As witnesses were cited A. C. Richards himself and Charles Forbes of the President's house.

The police archives afford no proof that Parker was really tried. If any transcripts of the case existed, they have been removed, and even the eventual findings of the Board are available only through subsequent records. These show that, although Parker was tried on May 3, the complaint was dismissed on June 2, 1865. The minutes of this trial before the Board would make one of the most interesting chapters in the story of Lincoln's assassination.

Can anyone offer an explanation of this? How in the world could all the information and details of what happened with this case against Parker mysteriously disappear?

Since the original transcripts AFAIK vanished, what is Eisenschiml's source for the specification? (I cannot find my copy!) Thanks! (Possibly it's not footnoted though.) I, too, would like where this comes from.

Eva, he gives his source as the O'Beirne papers - a collection of documents left by Major (later General) James Rowan O'Beirne, in the possession of the author (Otto Eisenschiml).

Thanks, Roger. Would be interesting to see where (whom) exactly this comes from.

(07-28-2016 01:16 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  John, regarding whether or not Richards was prone to fabrication, what is your opinion of the Orlando Sentinel article? (We discussed it in another thread.) Also, do you feel Ed Steers is simply wrong when he writes, "Richards gave several statements in the forty years following the assassination, all filled with inconsistencies and errors."

***************************************************************

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1987...kes-eustis

"Former Police Chief Richards provided more details about his involvement with the historic event during a 1900 talk at Clifford Hall, according to a letter written in 1958 by former Eustis resident M.B. Gault. The letter now is in the hands of the Lake County Historical Society.

Gault wrote: ''At one of the entertainments given by some group, a Col. Richards came on the stage and told how he had been posted behind the box in which President Lincoln sat when he was shot. He said he jumped through the front of the box to get Booth, who got away, but he found on the stage a Bowie knife that Booth was supposed to have lost. And he Richards showed us the knife.''

Roger:

I believe I commented on the Orlando Sentinel article some time ago. I did not save my comments, but I vaguely recall that there were so many retellings by so many people over such a lengthy period of time, that for this and other reasons, I felt the story could not be credited, or at least not most of it. Interestingly, though, the part about a couriered order to Booth to desist from the assassination accords well with my own belief of Booth's being at all times handled by the Confederate Secret Service.

As for Ed Steers's comment in The Lincoln Assassination Encyclopedia, I have never read his source (Gary R. Planck, The Lincoln Assassination's Forgotten Investigator), but I doubt that it would change my belief that the existence of inconsistencies and errors does not, by itself, reveal intentional falsehood. On the contrary, they are frequently evidence of truth, because identical accounts are often indicative of copying and a settled tale. Differences in perception, memory lapses, the opinions of others and the felt need to sometimes please one's listeners can and often do account for inconsistencies and errors. I am satisfied, based on his April 17, 1885, account (see Timothy S. Good, pp. 100-102), which, incidentally, establishes that he had not yet received word of Grant's change of plans, and his letter to Weichmann of May 16, 1898, that Richards was in Ford's on the 14th. I am also satisfied that the Fabricator in Chief is not Richards, but Stewart, who is elsewhere described as a "shady lawyer" and whose testimony is replete with indications of intentional falsehood.

Incidentally, if inconsistencies and errors always condemned an historical account, we should have to throw out all the evidence of the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth, because the Gospels are full of them.

John

I never recall reading anything about Stewart being a "shady lawyer." This forum is the first time I have seen it mentioned. Who was the source for this assessment of the man's character? Sounds suspiciously like something Richards would have said, but I can't find it in his correspondence.

Richards did call Stewart "shady" in his letter of June 8, 1898, to Weichmann and claims that before the war, he arrested Stewart in connection with some railroad bonds but "no serious charge" was ever brought against him. Stewart's difficulties with the bonds, however, appears to have arisen long after the war, according to his obit here (see bottom of first column).



http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/s...nge&page=1

(It's the August 8, 1882, Washington Evening Star. Not sure why it's not linking.)

Stewart appears to have been a rather colorful character.

But what portions of his testimony are "replete with indications of intentional falsehood"?

(07-29-2016 04:02 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/s...nge&page=1

(It's the August 8, 1882, Washington Evening Star. Not sure why it's not linking.)

The web page here may explain why:

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/