New Search - HELP

[Pamela]

(07-03-2016 10:24 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I cannot recall any book (other than Gary Planck's) that gives any real space to A.C. Richards at all. I am sure that I will get shot down for "hearsay," but I have been fortunate enough to have some great conversations with some great historians, and some passing attention to Richards and his veracity in later years has been a brief topic. Among those have been Hall, Kauffman, Hanchett, and I believe Brennan and Betty O.

About ten years ago, I did have email discussions with the then-historian of the Metropolitan Police Department, Nicholas Bruel, who was having a difficult time putting any meat on the bio bones of Richards - despite the fact that he was the Department's first superintendent. He was delighted to find out about (and to receive a Xerox of the Planck booklet) from me. However, Almarin Cooley Richards did not pass muster with any of the historians that I know as far as playing any significant role in identifying the events surrounding the Lincoln assassination. I did call Gary Planck at that time, and he didn't even know if he had any copies of his booklet in storage. His interest in A.C. Richards came and went mainly because he was in Florida and Richards had been also, in his retirement years.

BTW: Richards had virtually no training in police work from what I have read. He was trained as a teacher and was a very dedicated one - even founding some school - until the Civil War came along. I don't remember how he got an appointment as superintendent of the brand-new department; he must have known some politicians...

Also, Pamela, wasn't he the one that got fussed at by the War Department because he sent Weichmann and Holahan to Canada to search for John Surratt very shortly after the crime? They were amazed that a policeman would send two gentlemen, both very closely tied to those knowingly involved in the assassination and living under the same roof with them, out of the country. What guarantee did Richards have that they would return?

I do not see how anyone familiar with the circumstances could believe a man who made no statement that made it into the records in 1865, but twenty years later comes up with a story where nearly every detail is incorrect. Do I think that Richards was such a noodle head (your words, Pamela) in 1885 that he didn't know what really happened? I would not use the derogatory term of "noodle head," but I do believe that Mr. Richards may well have been suffering from a neurological disease that caused him to lose his concept of reality.

The Lincoln assassination story brings out many examples of "guilt by association." In this case, be careful not to let your interest in Louis Weichmann cause "innocence by association" in viewing the role of Richards. Because the two corresponded does not mean Richards's 1885 concoction is correct.

I believe the neurological disease that caused Richards to lose his concept of reality, according to you, is known as noodle head-itis. However, I'm sure if you actually read his letters you will change your diagnosis. It's probably a good idea to study available evidence of a person's mental capacity, as can be found in his letters, before suggesting neurological impairment.

Likewise, be careful not to let "guilt by association" (Weichmann a "Nancy boy") predispose you in your assessment of Richards.

The politician who appointed Richards was Lincoln.