(09-16-2017 10:04 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I think my memory is coming back regarding the supposed "Dr. Garland" who went south to serve as a doctor to Jefferson Davis -- and I owe everyone an apology. The Dr. Garland was actually Dr. AYP Garnett. From genealogytrails.com/main/jeffersondavis.html

"Jefferson Davis was lucky in that one of his Washington physicians was so pro-Southern in his sympathies that he felt it advisable for him to spend the war period in Richmond. There among his other services for the Confederacy was the care of the health of President Davis and his family.

"A.Y.P. Garnett
A".Y.P. Garnett was born Sept. 19, 1819, and died July 11, 1888. He was the son of Muscoe Garnett; was born on the Rappannock River in Essex County, Virginia. He graduated in medicine from the Medical Department of the University of Pennsylvania in 1841. On June 13, 1848, he married Mary E. Wise, a daughter of Henry A. Wise, governor of Virginia. He settled near Washington. D.C. where he enjoyed a large practice in the families of men prominent in public life, including the family of Senator Davis. In 1851 he had some service in connection with the U. S. Navy.
He removed from Washington to Richmond in 1861 and returned to Washington in 1865.
In Richmond he was personal physician to Jefferson Davis and served in two military hospitals. Later, he was president of the American Medical Association. He died at Rehobeth Beach, Delaware, of heart disease. Washington sketches of physicians teem with fine references to Dr. Garnett."

I now vaguely remember searching for Garland in the records of the St. Mary's County Historical Society and finding reference to the Peter Garland that Steve mentioned above. However, I could never make the connection with a later generation being in Southern Maryland and in a position to conspire with the original kidnapping or later murder of Lincoln -- even though many Southern Maryland planters would gladly have joined forces in the conspiracy, I'm sure.

Would like to know where Dr. Garnett lived while in the DC area.

I looked into the background of Dr. Alexander Y. P. Garnett and from what I can gather after he left Washington for Richmond, he became a doctor to Confederate VIPs in Richmond where he remained until the end of the war. Supposedly, he fled Richmond with Jefferson Davis but after General Johnston's surrender returned to Richmond. I found a copy of his parole taken in Richmond dated 26 April 1865:

   

I just don't see how it's possible Dr. Garnett could be the same person mentioned by Arnold or involved with Booth. Does anybody know the exact wording of what Arnold said about Dr. Garland?

(09-16-2017 06:31 PM)Steve Wrote:  

(09-16-2017 10:04 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I think my memory is coming back regarding the supposed "Dr. Garland" who went south to serve as a doctor to Jefferson Davis -- and I owe everyone an apology. The Dr. Garland was actually Dr. AYP Garnett. From genealogytrails.com/main/jeffersondavis.html

"Jefferson Davis was lucky in that one of his Washington physicians was so pro-Southern in his sympathies that he felt it advisable for him to spend the war period in Richmond. There among his other services for the Confederacy was the care of the health of President Davis and his family.

"A.Y.P. Garnett
A".Y.P. Garnett was born Sept. 19, 1819, and died July 11, 1888. He was the son of Muscoe Garnett; was born on the Rappannock River in Essex County, Virginia. He graduated in medicine from the Medical Department of the University of Pennsylvania in 1841. On June 13, 1848, he married Mary E. Wise, a daughter of Henry A. Wise, governor of Virginia. He settled near Washington. D.C. where he enjoyed a large practice in the families of men prominent in public life, including the family of Senator Davis. In 1851 he had some service in connection with the U. S. Navy.
He removed from Washington to Richmond in 1861 and returned to Washington in 1865.
In Richmond he was personal physician to Jefferson Davis and served in two military hospitals. Later, he was president of the American Medical Association. He died at Rehobeth Beach, Delaware, of heart disease. Washington sketches of physicians teem with fine references to Dr. Garnett."

I now vaguely remember searching for Garland in the records of the St. Mary's County Historical Society and finding reference to the Peter Garland that Steve mentioned above. However, I could never make the connection with a later generation being in Southern Maryland and in a position to conspire with the original kidnapping or later murder of Lincoln -- even though many Southern Maryland planters would gladly have joined forces in the conspiracy, I'm sure.

Would like to know where Dr. Garnett lived while in the DC area.

I looked into the background of Dr. Alexander Y. P. Garnett and from what I can gather after he left Washington for Richmond, he became a doctor to Confederate VIPs in Richmond where he remained until the end of the war. Supposedly, he fled Richmond with Jefferson Davis but after General Johnston's surrender returned to Richmond. I found a copy of his parole taken in Richmond dated 26 April 1865:



I just don't see how it's possible Dr. Garnett could be the same person mentioned by Arnold or involved with Booth. Does anybody know the exact wording of what Arnold said about Dr. Garland?

I agree, Steve, and that's where our trail went cold. Unless Garnett was an inside man in Richmond (which medically, he certainly was with Lee, Johnston, and others on his medical rolls) serving as a liaison with Booth and/or his controllers, he does not seem to have ties to Southern Maryland.

Dr. Garnett is buried in DC's famous Rock Creek Cemetery (along with Gen. Pershing, John C, Fremont, and Joseph Bell Alexander of Brown and Alexander Undertakers (as in Lincoln's funeral).

(09-15-2017 12:37 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  John, here is John Surratt's version of the kidnapping plot. What parts do you think are true (if any), and what parts do you think are false?

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

"After some difficulty everything was amicably arranged and we separated at 5 o'clock in the morning. Days, weeks and months passed by without an opportunity presenting itself for us to attempt the capture. We seldom saw one another owing to the many rumors afloat that a conspiracy of some kind was being concocted in Washington. We had all the arrangements perfected from Washington for the purpose. Boats were in readiness to carry us across the river. One day we received information that the President would visit the Seventh Street Hospital for the purpose of being present at an entertainment to be given for the benefit of the wounded soldiers. The report only reached us about three quarters of an hour before the time appointed, but so perfect was our communication that we were instantly in our saddles on the way to the hospital. This was between one and two o'clock in the afternoon. It was our intention to seize the carriage, which was drawn by a splendid pair of horses, and to have one of our men mount the box and drive direct for southern Maryland via Benning's bridge. We felt confident that all the cavalry in the city could never overhaul us. We were all mounted on swift horses, besides having a thorough knowledge of the country, it was determined to abandon the carriage after passing the city limits. Upon the suddenness of the blow and the celerity of our movements we depended for success. By the time the alarm could have been given and horses saddled, we would have been on our way through southern Maryland towards the Potomac River. To our great disappointment, however, the President was not there but one of the government officials - Mr. [Salmon P.] Chase, if I mistake not. We did not disturb him, as we wanted a bigger chase than he could have afforded us. It was certainly a bitter disappointment, but yet I think a most fortunate one for us. It was our last attempt. We soon after this became convinced that we could not remain much longer undiscovered, and that we must abandon our enterprise. Accordingly, a separation finally took place, and I never saw any of the party except one, and that was when I was on my way from Richmond to Canada on business of quite a different nature - about which, presently. Such is the story of our abduction plot."

Roger:

Sorry for not responding sooner. I just now noticed your message.

The quoted material, of course, comes from Surratt's Rockville lecture. Surratt, we all know (or should know), was a chronic liar. It was not the case that he was pathological, but merely that he found it necessary to lie about damned near everything in order to be a successful Secret Service agent. Accordingly, everything he said, including his remarks to Dr. Lewis J. A. McMillan aboard the Peruvian
, the Rockville lecture and his Hanson Hiss interview, needs to be taken with spoons full of salt. The three accounts he gives as to his meanderings after his arrival in Montreal on April 6, for example, are all very different--bearing no resemblance to each other. Thus, I do not believe any part of his account of the Campbell Hospital episode for the following reasons:

1. He was, as I said, a chronic liar;
2. He gave his Rockville lecture for the purpose of making money, to capitalize on his notoriety, at a time (1870) when he was most likely not receiving any financial support from the sources which had sustained him when he was an agent, when he was abroad and when he was tried (1867). In other words, he needed the money, so truth meant nothing to him. All he needed was an interesting story, one that would entertain his audience and, in the bargain, give him an opportunity to throw as much blame as possible on a dead man---Booth.
3. The kidnapping ruse had long been used by him and Booth to cover their more sinister plot of multiple assassinations, even to duping their own co-conspirators (which Booth would later admit in his conversation with Jett, Bainbridge and Ruggles), and it was therefore a simple matter for him to "validate" it by embellishing it with enough "detail" to give it plausibility.
4. Mike Kauffman concluded that the entire Campbell Hospital episode was most likely staged by Booth for the purpose of retrieving his guns and tools from Arnold and O'Laughlen and also to get his team nicely implicated in treason, thereby securing their loyalty ("Still, he needed everyone in position for the abduction, even if he knew it would never come off."--p. 185).
5. The Campbell Hospital episode has six versions, all very different. One came from Weichmann and Dan, the half-witted mulotto who did chores around the boardinghouse; three came from Arnold; one came from Surratt, as quoted by you; and one came from Atzerodt in his July 6 confession. They are all radically different from each other and for that reason it is impossible to know what really happened on March 17.
6. Arnold said of it, in his Memoirs, that the episode was so demented that "we concluded that it was done to try the nerve of his (Booth's) associates".

For all the foregoing reasons, and for all the reasons given in Chapter 12 of my book, especially pages 129-137, I do not believe anything Surratt said about the Campbell Hospital episode in his Rockville lecture.

John

Thanks, John. Although I still tend to believe the kidnapping plot was real, I certainly grant that you make some excellent points in the pages of your book that you cited. Kudos.

I will ask just one thing. You give credence to the testimony of Mrs. E. W. McClermont. She maintained that she overheard Booth, Herold, and Atzerodt having a conversation on a Washington street in April 1864 (an entire year prior to the assassination).

She claimed that she was standing only a few feet from the men. And she overheared them talking and testified as follows:

"Then I heard the President's name mentioned; one of the men spoke of his coming from the Soldier's Home; then I heard them mention the word "telescope rifle." One of these answered and said "His wife and child will be along."' Another replied, "It makes no difference; if necessary, they too could be got rid of." At this I turned, and one of them saw I was looking at them; they ceased conversation and walked on the avenue."

I have a couple of questions. First, doesn't Mrs. McClermont's testimony meet the legal definition of hearsay? And, second and more importantly, do you really think Booth and boys were so stupid as to have a conversation like this on a public street only a few feet from a total stranger who could hear what they were saying? Does this even make sense?

Something to consider.... either Mrs. E. W. McClermont lied; or Booth, Herold, and Atzerodt were that stupid.

(09-18-2017 09:04 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Thanks, John. Although I still tend to believe the kidnapping plot was real, I certainly grant that you make some excellent points in the pages of your book that you cited. Kudos.

I will ask just one thing. You give credence to the testimony of Mrs. E. W. McClermont. She maintained that she overheard Booth, Herold, and Atzerodt having a conversation on a Washington street in April 1864 (an entire year prior to the assassination).

She claimed that she was standing only a few feet from the men. And she overheared them talking and testified as follows:

"Then I heard the President's name mentioned; one of the men spoke of his coming from the Soldier's Home; then I heard them mention the word "telescope rifle." One of these answered and said "His wife and child will be along."' Another replied, "It makes no difference; if necessary, they too could be got rid of." At this I turned, and one of them saw I was looking at them; they ceased conversation and walked on the avenue."

I have a couple of questions. First, doesn't Mrs. McClermont's testimony meet the legal definition of hearsay? And, second and more importantly, do you really think Booth and boys were so stupid as to have a conversation like this on a public street only a few feet from a total stranger who could hear what they were saying? Does this even make sense?

That's impossible Booth was in New Orleans 1 April 1864 - 9 April 1864 (where he had been performing since early March) and was in Boston from 13 April 1864 - 30 April 1864 (where he continued to perform throughout the whole month of May). Booth's method of transport to Boston is unknown. Art Loux speculated he went up the Mississippi and then traveled to Boston by rail. But even if he didn't, I don't think he would've passed through Washington DC.

She could have her dates wrong.

I went on a few wrong dates in my youth.

(09-18-2017 09:04 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Thanks, John. Although I still tend to believe the kidnapping plot was real, I certainly grant that you make some excellent points in the pages of your book that you cited. Kudos.

I will ask just one thing. You give credence to the testimony of Mrs. E. W. McClermont. She maintained that she overheard Booth, Herold, and Atzerodt having a conversation on a Washington street in April 1864 (an entire year prior to the assassination).

She claimed that she was standing only a few feet from the men. And she overheared them talking and testified as follows:

"Then I heard the President's name mentioned; one of the men spoke of his coming from the Soldier's Home; then I heard them mention the word "telescope rifle." One of these answered and said "His wife and child will be along."' Another replied, "It makes no difference; if necessary, they too could be got rid of." At this I turned, and one of them saw I was looking at them; they ceased conversation and walked on the avenue."

I have a couple of questions. First, doesn't Mrs. McClermont's testimony meet the legal definition of hearsay? And, second and more importantly, do you really think Booth and boys were so stupid as to have a conversation like this on a public street only a few feet from a total stranger who could hear what they were saying? Does this even make sense?

Roger:

The hearsay rule is very complicated, because there are many exceptions to it, so many, in fact, that in some systems of jurisprudence hearsay evidence is not excluded, but merely given less weight. I, of course, do not know what the rule was in the Federal judiciary at the time, but it is a safe bet that it was largely the same as it is now. In my state, there are 23 exceptions to the rule of exclusion if the declarant is available and another 6 if the declarant is unavailable. (The declarant is the one making the statement sought to be introduced.) In my opinion, Mrs. McClermont's testimony as to what the conspirators said would be hearsay, and therefore inadmissible, but for the fact that it falls under one of the exceptions applicable when the declarant (the conspirators) is not available (since they were not permitted to testify). The exception is known as a statement made that is contrary to a declarant's interest. Accordingly, it would then be deemed admissible in evidence, which, apparently, was why her testimony was accepted.

As for the likelihood of the conspirators conversing as she said they did, in such close proximity to her, observe that she said they spoke in an undertone and that for that reason she picked up very little of the conversation at first. Consider, further, that Herold and Atzerodt were both immature and weak in the head and would therefore be quite likely to fail to take the kinds of precautions that wiser and more mature men would take. Booth was a numbskull too, but in a different way. Observe, too, that when they perceived that she was looking at them, they shut the conversation down and walked away. The bottom line is that I am inclined to credit her testimony and so, apparently, did Judge Fisher. I cannot imagine what motivation she would have had to make up the story out of whole cloth, nor can I imagine that Edwards Pierrepont and his colleagues would knowingly use perjured testimony. Further, I observe that defense counsel did not even bother to cross-examine her, which can only mean that they too felt her story was unimpeachable. (See pp. 365, 366 of The Trial of John Surratt, Vol. I.)

John

(09-18-2017 10:22 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 09:04 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Thanks, John. Although I still tend to believe the kidnapping plot was real, I certainly grant that you make some excellent points in the pages of your book that you cited. Kudos.

I will ask just one thing. You give credence to the testimony of Mrs. E. W. McClermont. She maintained that she overheard Booth, Herold, and Atzerodt having a conversation on a Washington street in April 1864 (an entire year prior to the assassination).

She claimed that she was standing only a few feet from the men. And she overheared them talking and testified as follows:

"Then I heard the President's name mentioned; one of the men spoke of his coming from the Soldier's Home; then I heard them mention the word "telescope rifle." One of these answered and said "His wife and child will be along."' Another replied, "It makes no difference; if necessary, they too could be got rid of." At this I turned, and one of them saw I was looking at them; they ceased conversation and walked on the avenue."

I have a couple of questions. First, doesn't Mrs. McClermont's testimony meet the legal definition of hearsay? And, second and more importantly, do you really think Booth and boys were so stupid as to have a conversation like this on a public street only a few feet from a total stranger who could hear what they were saying? Does this even make sense?

Roger:

The hearsay rule is very complicated, because there are many exceptions to it, so many, in fact, that in some systems of jurisprudence hearsay evidence is not excluded, but merely given less weight. I, of course, do not know what the rule was in the Federal judiciary at the time, but it is a safe bet that it was largely the same as it is now. In my state, there are 23 exceptions to the rule of exclusion if the declarant is available and another 6 if the declarant is unavailable. (The declarant is the one making the statement sought to be introduced.) In my opinion, Mrs. McClermont's testimony as to what the conspirators said would be hearsay, and therefore inadmissible, but for the fact that it falls under one of the exceptions applicable when the declarant (the conspirators) is not available (since they were not permitted to testify). The exception is known as a statement made that is contrary to a declarant's interest. Accordingly, it would then be deemed admissible in evidence, which, apparently, was why her testimony was accepted.

As for the likelihood of the conspirators conversing as she said they did, in such close proximity to her, observe that she said they spoke in an undertone and that for that reason she picked up very little of the conversation at first. Consider, further, that Herold and Atzerodt were both immature and weak in the head and would therefore be quite likely to fail to take the kinds of precautions that wiser and more mature men would take. Booth was a numbskull too, but in a different way. Observe, too, that when they perceived that she was looking at them, they shut the conversation down and walked away. The bottom line is that I am inclined to credit her testimony and so, apparently, did Judge Fisher. I cannot imagine what motivation she would have had to make up the story out of whole cloth, nor can I imagine that Edwards Pierrepont and his colleagues would knowingly use perjured testimony. Further, I observe that defense counsel did not even bother to cross-examine her, which can only mean that they too felt her story was unimpeachable. (See pp. 365, 366 of The Trial of John Surratt, Vol. I.)

John

Or the lack of cross-examination could mean that the defense felt her story was so obviously improbable that further questioning wasn't necessary. It's also important to remember that tone and demeanor generally don't come across in a trial transcript, which is one reason why appellate courts defer to trial courts in matters of witness credibility.

I think this was discussed a while back on another thread, but there's no evidence that Lincoln visited the Soldiers' Home in April 1864. "Lincoln Day by Day" mentions no visits by him in that month, and neither does Matthew Pinsker's "Lincoln's Sanctuary." The latter mentions only a drive by Mary Lincoln there in May 1864 before the family took up their summer residence there in July 1864.

In addition to the difficulty Steve mentioned of Booth squeezing in a trip to Washington, D.C., in April 1864, which IIRC was also mentioned in the other thread, there's also the lack of evidence that Booth had met Atzerodt (or, for that matter, John Surratt) by April 1864.

My belief is that if Mrs. McClermont witnessed anything involving the conspirators, it was in March 1865.

I agree with John in regards to the testimony and hearsay. Besides the credibility issues that might or might not have appeared to the jury, another important reason why cross-examination wasn't really necessary was because Mrs. McClermont never identified John Surratt as one of the men she overheard that day. It's not as if the defense disputed that Booth, Atzerodt, and Herold were involved in the assassination - the question at the heart of the trial was whether Surratt himself had any involvement beyond the (supposed)kidnapping plot.

Here's a link to Mrs. McClermont's full testimony (beginning on page 365):

https://books.google.com/books?id=tls_i-...nt&f=false

In her testimony, she heard one of the three men say the name "Jim". If they were indiscreet enough to talk about a murder plot in public, albeit in hushed tones; why would Booth, Herold, or Atzerodt use an alias?

I was able to find a 10 Sept. 1864 Washington DC marriage record of Elizabeth W. Sommers and Robert McClermont. The absence of any other McClermonts in the 1860 and 1870 censuses and Washington city directories lead me to conclude this is indeed her:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XLDN-8MX

and I findagrave entry with an obituary for a son from her first marriage:

https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cg...=157213684

I find it hard to believe that if the conversation took place a month or so before the assassination that she would mistakenly place it a year earlier only a couple years later during Surratt's trial. As mentioned before Booth wasn't in Washington in April 1864 and wouldn't even be in Washington again until November 1864. Wouldn't McClermont be able to remember if she overheard the conversation before or after her marriage?

All these problems lead me to doubt the credibility of her testimony.

(09-18-2017 04:55 PM)Steve Wrote:  In her testimony, she heard one of the three men say the name "Jim".

Maybe, in the hushed tones, she mistook "John" for "Jim." (?)

I am disturbed by the fact that she apparently kept what she heard to herself until 1867. She supposedly overheard a conversation in which Abraham Lincoln, Mary Lincoln, and Tad Lincoln "could be got rid of," and she doesn't go to the police?

If what she heard were true, I wonder which one said that Mary and Tad could also be targeted. Booth liked kids, and he apparently once gave Tad Lincoln a rose backstage during a performance at Grover's Theatre (p.139 of Terry Alford's Fortune's Fool). IMO, Booth would not have said this. So that leaves Herold or Atzerodt. If I were a betting man, I think I'd bet on Herold.

(09-18-2017 05:12 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  I am disturbed by the fact that she apparently kept what she heard to herself until 1867. She supposedly overheard a conversation in which Abraham Lincoln, Mary Lincoln, and Tad Lincoln "could be got rid of," and she doesn't go to the police?

If what she heard were true, I wonder which one said that Mary and Tad could also be targeted. Booth liked kids, and he apparently once gave Tad Lincoln a rose backstage during a performance at Grover's Theatre (p.139 of Terry Alford's Fortune's Fool). IMO, Booth would not have said this. So that leaves Herold or Atzerodt. If I were a betting man, I think I'd bet on Herold.

I'm also disturbed that she wouldn't notify somebody at the time of the conversation. She also apparently didn't come forward after Lincoln was assassinated, even after attending the conspiracy trial where she was able to identify Herold and Atzerodt.

(09-14-2017 06:05 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 05:09 PM)Steve Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 09:58 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Agreed that we are beating a dead horse. I just don't think that anyone nowadays understands the Confederate network (and frustration) in Southern Maryland and the Northern Neck of Virginia. When I first started working at Surratt House, I met a gentleman who was writing a book on Lincoln. He told me that he was amazed at the animosity that still existed among old-timers in Maryland regarding Mr. Lincoln -- more than what he had encountered in the Deep South...

"I don't know anything about Dr. Garland and I don't know anyone who does. Reference to him is made on p. 278 of my book. It derives from an oral statement made by Arnold to James L. McPhail, Provost Marshal of Maryland, to the effect that Booth had corresponded with Drs. Mudd, Garland and Queen."

That reference is exactly what put Tidwell, Hall, and Gaddy on the trail of the elusive Dr. Garland over thirty years ago. Ed Steers worked closely with Hall while researching Blood on the Moon, so I suspect that's why he picked up on the reference also.

At the time, Mr. Hall asked me to use my St. Mary's County roots to see if we could identify Dr. Garland. I wish I still had my notes on the doctor, but I don't. I just remember that there was a Dr. Garland in St. Mary's County at the beginning of the war and that he went south to serve Davis. Would he have been part of the pipeline between the Southern Maryland planters and Richmond? Don't forget that the residents of St. Mary's were just as involved in the underground as those in Prince George's and Charles Counties and that river crossings occurred in that county also.

Have you considered the possibility that Arnold misremembered Garland's last name? Maybe it was actually a similar surname that was more common in the area, like Gardiner.

I did find a reference to a Dr. Garland; I just don't remember where thirty-plus years later. Your suggestion is a logical one -- Gardiners, however, were/are more prevalent in Charles County instead of St. Mary's.

Here's a link to the complete note by McPhail mentioning Dr. Garland in Steers' book on page 172:

https://books.google.com/books?id=lIaULi...nd&f=false

Note that according to Horner's testimony of what Arnold said before he was transferred to McPhail. Arnold only mentioned Dr. Queen and Dr. Mudd. That along with the lack of anybody with the name Garland in the area leads me to one of two possibilities:

1. McPhail made a mistake in his note and "Dr Garland" doesn't exist. Maybe he misremembered something about one of the Gardiners living near Dr. Mudd.

2. Dr. Garland wasn't from Maryland at all and that's why Arnold didn't mention him to Horner.

Everyone:

There are stumbling blocks, true. That's nothing new.

Gene, I believe it more likely that Booth, Herold and Atzerodt were that stupid. I also believe it likely that she had the date wrong ("As near as I can recollect, between the 12th and the 15th of April"). I can place Booth and Herold together then, but not Atzerodt, who does not appear to have joined the conspiracy earlier than the winter of 1864-1865.

Steve, it is possible that Booth was in Washington while en route from New Orleans to Boston, but I doubt it. More likely is it that Mrs. McClermont erred with respect to the date. She was, after all, recalling an event that occurred about some years earlier. Your point about John Surratt not being mentioned in her testimony is a good one. It most likely accounts for the fact that she was not cross examined.

Susan, the fact that defense counsel did not cross-examine her could not have had anything to do with their believing her testimony was "so improbable". If they believed that, they would have been salivating like a starving pit bull to get at her. Further, the reference to the Soldiers' Home is ambiguous; we can't be certain she was talking about Lincoln's being there at that time, as opposed to being there at various times, which fact was known to the conspirators. I agree with you that she most likely meant a date in the spring of 1865 rather than 1864, at which time the three conspirators named are known to have been together and in gear. If that is true, it would explain why she hadn't been heard from before the trial. There may have been other reasons she failed to come forth with her story until 1867. One can speculate, but little if anything is gained by so doing.

In my judgment, the equities favor credibility, but there are problems, unquestionably.

John

Don't forget in April 64 there was a plot to kidnap Lincoln at the Soldier's Home using Col Johnson's Maryland cavalry. It's possible that word leaked to Washington operatives on the street but I doubt the old biddy heard anything. I can't remember what I had for dinner last night so I doubt she could recall a random 3 year old conversation on the street. I could be wrong but I'm sure John Fazio would have destroyed her on cross-examination.