True Crime in The Civil War

[L Verge]

(09-04-2018 06:38 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  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 Though the objection was withdrawn, Johnson nonetheless did not participate much in the process, and left much of the legal defense to Aiken and John Clampitt, who had recently set up their own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?

Michael - You are correct in that John Clampitt was Mary's other defense lawyer, but we're not sure how active a role he took. There are no known records of their dealings, interviews, etc. with Mary. Likewise, we suspect that the government conducted other interrogations of her, but so far only the early interview is known. I'm not sure whether it was said by Aiken or by Clampitt, but one of them later claimed that they were "hamstrung" by her uncooperative behavior. They needed more in order to find points of defense.

Now, as for Reverdy Johnson, his previous views on the loyalty oath were not what really hurt him. First, he was a Union man trying to help a Confederate woman, and he was a friend of Lincoln. He knew nothing about any of the Surratts before April 14th, 1865. He took her case only because she asked for him specifically and he believed that everyone was entitled to have their rights protected. He offered his service free of charge.

Johnson made a statement at the beginning and his first sentence was "she should not go undefended." His last statement, however, is what harmed Mary the most: "I am not here to protect anyone who, when the evidence is heard, I shall deem to have been guilty -- not even her."

We have no idea whether he deemed her guilty, but within a few days of the court opening, he began showing up less and less. Most think that he probably realized that the animosity between him and members of the court was hurting the case, so he held back. Rumor, however, had it that evidence pointed more to guilt, so (true to his word), he dropped out.

You really do need to read Kate Larson's book, Assassin's Accomplice. She takes a hard stand against the innocence of Mary Surratt (which is semi-okay with me), but the book is very well researched and written. If you have a hard time finding a copy, we do sell it at Surratt House. We have shipped to places in Europe before, but I don't know how mail and customs work as far as Australia.