True Crime in The Civil War

[AussieMick]

Roger, I read the very interesting Thread http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...ad-74.html ('what if Llloyd did not testify'). Everyone makes good points.
My opinion? Mary would have been found guilty but not hanged. Weichmann's evidence was damning but not without Lloyd's. Put them together and it made close to a certainty she'd hang. The book mentioned in the Thread sounds interesting ... I'll try to get it. Kate Clifford Larson's book, "Assassins Accomplice".

Obviously we'll never know, and I know the witnesses were under oath so that's what we have to work on, but ... I think it possible (!!!) that the investigators might have 'assisted' them to remember what happened and especially Surratt's involvement.
Hence me wondering how a modern day lawyer defending Surratt would have acted. I think these days the role of investigators is much more open to question and people are more cynical about the potential for 'verballing' (not sure if thats a well known term in the US) and leaning on witnesses.
Her main lawyer was Colonel Frederick Aiken (with John Clampitt ... no, not Clampett ... that was the TV show).

Her official counsel was Reverdy Johnson. According to Wikipedia ... "several members of the panel challenged Johnson's right to defend Surratt as he had objected to requiring loyalty oaths from voters during the 1864 presidential election. Though the objection was withdrawn, Johnson nonetheless did not participate much in the process, and left much of the legal defense to Aiken and John Clampitt, who had recently set up their own law practice in Washington."

Interesting ... That 'objection' seems highly suspect. Could it be that Johnson , who was a statesman and jurist and went on to be Ambassador to the UK, could sense the likely outcome and didnt want close involvement with Surratt?