Did Lloyd Lie?

[wpbinzel]

“Just as they were about leaving, the man who was with Herold said, ‘I will tell you some news if you want to hear it,’ or something to that effect. I said, ‘I am not particular; use your own pleasure about telling it.’ ‘Well,’ he said, ‘I am pretty certain that we have assassinated the President and Secretary Seward.’ I think that was his language, as well as I can recollect.”
-- John M. Lloyd, Trial of the Lincoln Assassination Conspirators, May 13, 1865

How accurate was Lloyd’s recollection and testimony? On cross-examination, Lloyd admitted that “I was right smart in liquer that afternoon, and after night I got more so.” However, and although the verbiage used varied a bit, Lloyd was fairly consistent in his multiple statements, which were consistent with his testimony at the Trial.

If Lloyd’s testimony was essentially accurate, then how did John Wilkes Booth know that George Atzerodt had failed to kill Vice President Andrew Johnson? Atzerodt’s failure to make the rendezvous on Soper’s Hill may have been a clue, but Powell also was a no-show (albeit, Herold likely confirmed Powell’s attack on Seward for Booth). Booth had no way of knowing whether Atzerodt had been captured or killed after murdering Johnson; whether Sergeant Cobb had refused to allow Atzerodt to cross the Navy Yard Bridge; or whether Atzerodt simply got drunk after completing his assignment. Less than two hours after his act, Booth had no way of knowing that Andrew Johnson was still alive.

It is conceivable that Booth had so little faith in Atzerodt that he simply assumed that no attempt was made on Johnson’s life, but that seems unlikely. It would seem more probable that Lloyd’s pickled brain was the culprit and that if Booth bragged about killing Lincoln and Seward, he also mentioned Johnson. Later, Lloyd recalled that the man with Herold had said something about killing government officials, but was hazy on who he named, and simply conformed his recollection to the sober truth.

This is speculation on my part as a way of asking if anyone has looked more closely at this question.

[LincolnMan]

I seems curious to me (at least by today's standards anyway) that so much weight would have been placed on a witness that admitted he had been drinking. I would have thought his testimony would have been invalidated by the defense lawyer(s). Such were the times...

[L Verge]

It would be interesting today to know how much leeway military courts give to civilian defense lawyers... Where's our JAG reps on this forum? While I happen to think that a military tribunal was the right way to go in the trial of the Lincoln conspirators, I have never been able to understand some of the techniques that the court was allowed to use -- I just know that the ability to use these techniques is one of the reasons they chose the tribunal method. I think there's a "bending of the law" factor there.

As for the veracity of John Lloyd, I think the fact that he maintained the same basic testimony through several months is pretty significant to judging his recall. I also wonder if Booth or Herold did mention Johnson, but Lloyd didn't hear it - or it didn't register because the later news only focused on the attacks on Lincoln and Seward.

If I were Booth, I would have every confidence in Powell doing his duty (especially if Herold was with him long enough to see him enter the residence - which I think he was). If Herold was also the point man to check up on Atzerodt, he probably reported what Booth was expecting anyway - Atzerodt chickened out.

One more point on Lloyd, however, he followed the rules of self-preservation -- he copped a plea deal. Mr. Lloyd was guilty of aiding and abetting, but he turned state's evidence to escape those charges. And, he actually got paid (legally) for his testimony. For some reason, the figure $60 sticks in my head... Kauffman may mention this in American Brutus because I remember both he and James O. Hall referencing it.

[RJNorton]

If we can believe George Atzerodt.....

In his statement of July 6, 1865, he wrote:

"Booth appointed me and Harold to kill Johnson; in going down the street I told Booth we could not do it. Booth said Harold had more courage, and he would do it. Harold and I were on Pennsylvania Avenue together. I told him I would not do it, and should not go to my room for fear he would disturb Johnson. He left me to go for Booth."

If this be true then I think both Booth and Herold were pretty certain Johnson was alive.

[Wesley Harris]

Having been in law enforcement nearly four decades, I can attest that most crimes involve people (suspects, witnesses, victims) under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. The courts have consistently noted that that impairment does not substantially diminish the veracity of witnesses. Otherwise, we'd never be able to convict anyone for lack of a sober witness.

[wpbinzel]

All great observations and comments. Thank you!

[LincolnToddFan]

I realize that it's quite useless to apply 20-21st legal guidelines to those of the 19th century, but I think it's obvious that several if not most of the Lincoln conspirators would have done minimal time in prison if convicted today. The exceptions are Lewis Powell who wreaked terrible mayhem at the Seward home, and perhaps Davy Herold. Even Powell could conceivably have pleaded diminished capacity. Certainly none of the four...Atzerodt, Herold, Powell, or Mary Surratt would have gotten the death penalty.

Then there is John Wilkes Booth, who would indeed have been eligible for the death penalty for such a crime today. But I have often wondered if a skilled legal team would have been able to successfully use a diminished capacity defense for him as well? He had been drinking heavily for days and was very despondent. In 1968 Sirhan Bishara Sirhan's(assassin of Robert F. Kennedy) attorneys wanted to use a diminished capacity strategy for him based on basically the same reasons...he was drunk. He was depressed, emotionally unstable. But Sirhan very unwisely(imo) insisted on making RFK's pro-Israel statements and the anguish it caused him the showcase of his defense and his justification for murder.

Something tells me JWB would have taken the same attitude as Sirhan. He would never have allowed his lawyers to use a diminished capacity defense. To plead that he was temporarily insane when he killed Lincoln would have been unthinkable to a man like JWB. And-like Sirhan-he likely would have insisted to the end that the circumstances justified the deed.

[HerbS]

Usually,alcohol and drugs gives a person a false sense of courage to act out![students for example]But,my experience with"At Risk"students, is that alcohol and drug use is a trigger to act out.I have also found that,"The Apple Does Not Fall To Far From The Tree."

[LincolnToddFan]

Very, very true HerbS! Look at the horrible situation recently with that young girl who got stoned, tweeted she was "too drunk to care" before getting behind the wheel and killing another teen!