Very appropriate words

[L Verge]

(11-24-2016 01:59 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(11-22-2016 11:56 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Sorry, John, but you have "manipulated" my thoughts on the conspiracy slightly. I do believe that there was an original capture scheme (at least 3-4 of them under different "leaders" during the war) and that Booth turned to his own resources and assassination at the end.

That said, I still believe that conspiracy is conspiracy, no matter the actual outcome of the plot. Therefore, I understand why the federal system tried Mrs. Surratt as a conspirator, and her actions before and after indicate that she was implicated - knowingly or unknowingly. To summarize my thoughts on the issue of Mrs. Surratt: Whether guilty or innocent, she made friends with the wrong people and paid the penalty when the conspiracy took a deadly turn. The conspiracy to use Lincoln as the final move in the chess game of war remained the same.

I am probably going to regret asking this, but if you had taken on the task of representing Mrs. Surratt before the tribunal, what approach would you have taken in defending her?

Laurie:

A good question and the answer to which, unfortunately, may imply criticism of Clampitt, Aiken and even Johnson, for as long as he was around. I am loathe to do that inasmuch as I wasn't there and was therefore not privy to nearly as much information as they were. Still, I have a few comments:

1. Mrs. Surrat was accused of "aiding and abetting Booth and the other conspirators, knowing their intent and purpose, and of aiding and abetting their escape."
2. I would have made the focus of the defense the words "knowing their intent and purpose", which, like the rest of the charge, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Though unlikely, it is possible that she made the two trips to Surrattsville, delivered the glasses and told Lloyd to get out the shooting irons because they would be called for, as personal favors to Booth, not knowing what his ultimate purposes were. Booth would wish to share the whole truth with as few people as possible. That is Spycraft 101. I would have hammered on reasonable doubt as to her knowledge of what the items Lloyd was holding were to be used for.
4. I would have made a greater effort to impeach Weichmann's credibility by alleging that his testimony was given to prevent his own prosecution. There was evidence for that. I would have backed this up with testimony from Brophy, Carland, Gifford and Nora Fitzpatrick, at least. Much of the testimony they gave in Surratt's trial would have been very effective for impeachment purposes in the trial of the conspirators. The attempt to introduce Brophy's Affidavit and to call him as a witness came too late. Everything was over by then and everyone was totally exhausted and therefore had no wish to hear from him. He and his Affidavit should have been introduced into the trial as early as possible, while everyone was relatively fresh.
5. I would not have introduced the testimony about Mary's eyesight. That was counter-productive, because no one believed her. The attempt to prove non-recognition of Powell, therefore, only had the effect of demonstrating that she was quite capable of telling very big lies and that her counsel were quite capable of accepting them. Recognition of Powell was perfectly obvious to everyone. Her lawyers should simply have acknowledged that she recognized him, but that she denied it because she wished to avoid association with him, inasmuch as she had no idea what he had done and what part he had played in Booth's conspiracy. She knew she was under suspicion and was, at that very moment, being arrested. So she panicked and made a mistake, in a feeble attempt to defend herself.
6. Similarly, I would not have introduced testimony about Lloyd being a drunken sot. That, too, was counter-productive, because it made the defense look like it was grasping for straws. Lloyd's credibility should also have been impeached, but not by allegations of drunkenness, which were not relevant, but by introducing testimony to show that he, too, was motivated by a perceived need to save his own skin, because he, too, was probably complicit, having a pretty good idea what the firearms, tools, whisky and glasses were to be used for after they had been left with him by the likes of Atzerodt, Herold and John Surratt.

Having done all this, is there any assurance that the result would have been different? Of course not.

John

Believe it or not, I will not argue with you! I think your first and last sentences tell the story - The defense lawyers (no matter who they might have been) were up against a stone wall.

Even Ewing, with his "prestige" and background could only save Mudd (I think) because of the fact that the good doctor was supposedly not in touch with Booth from March until April 15. Those of you who know me know that I think Mudd did have touch with Herold regarding being ready on April 12 or 13; but of course, I can't prove it.

Clampitt and Aiken were junior league going against tough opponents, with Stanton - a good lawyer himself - calling plays from the sidelines.

Your summation, to me, says it all. One question: Do the same legal principles and tactics apply in a military court as in a criminal or civil court? I hope Burrus Carnahan will touch on this at the Surratt conference in April.

---

(11-24-2016 03:08 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Tony, I share your thoughts on this.

As do I. I've taken a beating from some over the years who think that I should support the innocence of Mrs. Surratt since I am director of the Surratt House Museum. I prefer to think of myself as an educator who presents both sides of the story - with one side just being much more logical than the other...