Did JWB visit Mary's boarding house after the assassination?

[L Verge]

(02-26-2015 09:38 AM)Pamela Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 05:38 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 08:23 PM)L Verge Wrote:  She had served her purpose earlier in the day.

Laurie, this is probably the single biggest reason why I personally believe Weichmann was most likely telling the truth regarding the 9:00 P.M. visitor being Booth. It just makes sense to me that he would check that she had been successful prior to his proceeding on to Ford's.

(02-25-2015 11:47 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  I think Richards' memory might have been playing tricks with him in 1898--

In 1885 Richards also made the claim that he was in Ford's Theatre at the time Lincoln was shot. Richards said he chased after Booth into the alley and questioned the black boy who had been holding Booth's horse. I believe the evidence is pretty overwhelming that Burroughs was white, but Richards' claim of Burroughs being black was accepted by a small number of assassination authors. Does anyone know if 1885 was the earliest time Richards claimed to be at Ford's? Did he say he was there in earlier accounts?

Maybe both accounts are right. Peanuts could have been a light enough skinned mulatto to pass for white on occasion.

I've addressed my thoughts on this earlier, Pamela, before you became a member. The most telling evidence that Peanuts was white is the fact that he is not labeled as "colrd" in the trial transcripts. That was the practice of the times back then.

Peanuts was also invited to visit bars with some of the crew at Ford's. Colored folk of those days would not have been allowed in. I was raised in segregated Southern Maryland and around mulattoes and Wesorts (a unique blend of Caucasian, Negroid, and American Indian DNA and culture) all my life. Mixed race was/is not hard to detect if one is used to what to look for.

[RobertLC]

This has been an interesting and informative thread. However, at this point, I stand by my first posting that Booth would not have stopped in the City after the shooting. My opinion remains that he would have wanted to get out of town as fast as he could. His only stop before he reached southern Maryland was probably at the bridge talking to Cobb.

Regarding the second part of this thread that has developed … it appears to me that Weichmann perjured himself during his May testimony, in the trial of the conspirators, when he answered Reverdy Johnson by saying that he did know who the visitor was that stopped by Mary Surratt’s boarding house before the shooting. I conclude that because the post-testimony evidence that I’ve seen in this thread seems to show that Weichmann knew it was Booth.

[Susan Higginbotham]

(02-26-2015 09:49 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 09:38 AM)Pamela Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 05:38 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 08:23 PM)L Verge Wrote:  She had served her purpose earlier in the day.

Laurie, this is probably the single biggest reason why I personally believe Weichmann was most likely telling the truth regarding the 9:00 P.M. visitor being Booth. It just makes sense to me that he would check that she had been successful prior to his proceeding on to Ford's.

(02-25-2015 11:47 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  I think Richards' memory might have been playing tricks with him in 1898--

In 1885 Richards also made the claim that he was in Ford's Theatre at the time Lincoln was shot. Richards said he chased after Booth into the alley and questioned the black boy who had been holding Booth's horse. I believe the evidence is pretty overwhelming that Burroughs was white, but Richards' claim of Burroughs being black was accepted by a small number of assassination authors. Does anyone know if 1885 was the earliest time Richards claimed to be at Ford's? Did he say he was there in earlier accounts?

Maybe both accounts are right. Peanuts could have been a light enough skinned mulatto to pass for white on occasion.

I've addressed my thoughts on this earlier, Pamela, before you became a member. The most telling evidence that Peanuts was white is the fact that he is not labeled as "colrd" in the trial transcripts. That was the practice of the times back then.

Peanuts was also invited to visit bars with some of the crew at Ford's. Colored folk of those days would not have been allowed in. I was raised in segregated Southern Maryland and around mulattoes and Wesorts (a unique blend of Caucasian, Negroid, and American Indian DNA and culture) all my life. Mixed race was/is not hard to detect if one is used to what to look for.

Didn't Booth himself drink at the bar with Peanuts at some point? Can't imagine him doing so with someone of mixed race.

[Pamela]

(02-26-2015 12:17 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 09:49 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 09:38 AM)Pamela Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 05:38 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 08:23 PM)L Verge Wrote:  She had served her purpose earlier in the day.

Laurie, this is probably the single biggest reason why I personally believe Weichmann was most likely telling the truth regarding the 9:00 P.M. visitor being Booth. It just makes sense to me that he would check that she had been successful prior to his proceeding on to Ford's.

(02-25-2015 11:47 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  I think Richards' memory might have been playing tricks with him in 1898--

In 1885 Richards also made the claim that he was in Ford's Theatre at the time Lincoln was shot. Richards said he chased after Booth into the alley and questioned the black boy who had been holding Booth's horse. I believe the evidence is pretty overwhelming that Burroughs was white, but Richards' claim of Burroughs being black was accepted by a small number of assassination authors. Does anyone know if 1885 was the earliest time Richards claimed to be at Ford's? Did he say he was there in earlier accounts?

Maybe both accounts are right. Peanuts could have been a light enough skinned mulatto to pass for white on occasion.

I've addressed my thoughts on this earlier, Pamela, before you became a member. The most telling evidence that Peanuts was white is the fact that he is not labeled as "colrd" in the trial transcripts. That was the practice of the times back then.

Peanuts was also invited to visit bars with some of the crew at Ford's. Colored folk of those days would not have been allowed in. I was raised in segregated Southern Maryland and around mulattoes and Wesorts (a unique blend of Caucasian, Negroid, and American Indian DNA and culture) all my life. Mixed race was/is not hard to detect if one is used to what to look for.

Didn't Booth himself drink at the bar with Peanuts at some point? Can't imagine him doing so with someone of mixed race.

Possibilities?--Richards saw Peanuts in the dark so poor visibility. Who wrote down Richard's account? Someone made an assumption because blacks usually held horses?

[RJNorton]

Hi Pam. I think Richards gave several accounts, but the one I was citing regarding the boy in the alley was printed in the April 17, 1885, Washington Critic.

Does anyone know why Richards did not testify at the conspiracy trial? I would think if the Superintendent of the Metropolitan Police had been at the boardinghouse immediately after the assassination (and talked to Mary Surratt) he would have been called.

McDevitt testified.

IMO, I would think that if Richards were telling Weichmann the truth in his letters then he would have been called.

[Pamela]

(02-26-2015 02:59 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Hi Pam. I think Richards gave several accounts, but the one I was citing regarding the boy in the alley was printed in the April 17, 1885, Washington Critic.

Does anyone know why Richards did not testify at the conspiracy trial? I would think if the Superintendent of the Metropolitan Police had been at the boardinghouse immediately after the assassination (and talked to Mary Surratt) he would have been called.

McDevitt testified.

IMO, I would think that if Richards were telling Weichmann the truth in his letters then he would have been called.

I read that Richards practically got a fatwah on his head from Stanton who was furious that Richards sent Weichmann and Holahan to Canada. I believe Stanton ordered Richards to go after them and put a price on their heads, but Weichmann returned, unaware of the commotion, and was released from custody, spent the night at a nearby boarding house, ate breakfast next to Grant's son the next morning, and took a stroll where he was spotted by Burnett, who had also been chewed out. Burnett asked him into his office and told him that Stanton wanted to see him. Before Weichmann went in, Burnett went into Stanton's office to resign. Stanton apologized and Burnett withdrew his request. Weichmann then had his one and only meeting with Stanton.

I guess Richards thought it best to keep a low profile after that so he would keep his job. Have you read Richard's letters to Weichmann? He seemed sincere to me. Can you tell me where I can read the 1885 interview? --I just found it.
He was an impressive guy.http://mpdc.dc.gov/biography/ac-richards

[Jim Garrett]

This may be a minor point........If my feeble old mind serves me right, Booth's mare was high strung. I believe somewhere there is the comment that the horse could not be tied because she would break the reigns and possibly take off. Unless the Surratt Boarding House had valet parking, Booth would have had to find someone to hold the horse, consuming more valuable time. I fall into the camp that he made some level of preparations for his flight and had extra firearms, hat, Old Spice deodorant, and a change of socks in his saddlebags.

[L Verge]

(02-26-2015 10:58 PM)Pamela Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:59 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Hi Pam. I think Richards gave several accounts, but the one I was citing regarding the boy in the alley was printed in the April 17, 1885, Washington Critic.

Does anyone know why Richards did not testify at the conspiracy trial? I would think if the Superintendent of the Metropolitan Police had been at the boardinghouse immediately after the assassination (and talked to Mary Surratt) he would have been called.

McDevitt testified.

IMO, I would think that if Richards were telling Weichmann the truth in his letters then he would have been called.

I read that Richards practically got a fatwah on his head from Stanton who was furious that Richards sent Weichmann and Holahan to Canada. I believe Stanton ordered Richards to go after them and put a price on their heads, but Weichmann returned, unaware of the commotion, and was released from custody, spent the night at a nearby boarding house, ate breakfast next to Grant's son the next morning, and took a stroll where he was spotted by Burnett, who had also been chewed out. Burnett asked him into his office and told him that Stanton wanted to see him. Before Weichmann went in, Burnett went into Stanton's office to resign. Stanton apologized and Burnett withdrew his request. Weichmann then had his one and only meeting with Stanton.

I guess Richards thought it best to keep a low profile after that so he would keep his job. Have you read Richard's letters to Weichmann? He seemed sincere to me. Can you tell me where I can read the 1885 interview? --I just found it.
He was an impressive guy.http://mpdc.dc.gov/biography/ac-richards

I'll lay you dimes to donuts that that brief bio came from Gary Planck's little booklet on A.C. Richards that I supplied to the then-historian for the Metropolitan Police Force about 8-9 years ago! At that time, he told me he had no information on A.C. Richards. Too bad a citation (not a ticket) wasn't given to Gary's research.

[Thomas Thorne]

Did Weichmann lie to protect Mary at the trial or did he lie to ruin her reputation posthumously? I'm inclined to believe the former. If he desired to maximize the harm he could do her, it was best to do it while she was alive. He could not be certain of her fate.

In reading the M599 compilation,the biggest disappointment for me was how little we are told of the internal deliberations of the government as to what persons should be brought to trial. There is an interesting statement by one of the officers who was involved in the early stages of the investigation but left after the 8 conspirators were captured. He recommended vigorous investigation of Anna Surratt.

Now everything I have learned about Anna tells me if I were involved in a furtive conspiracy,she would be the last person I would recruit. Yet I wonder being in such enduring and close proximity to the family's activities at the tavern and boarding house, how much she knew.

There is a persistent story that Weichmann was quite smitten with Anna,a feeling she did not reciprocate. We know she let slip out her knowledge of JWB's early afternoon visit of 4/14/65 to the boarding house. Was Weichmann trying to protect her as well? It would seem mad for Weichmann to think Anna would be grateful for limiting the damage he did to her and her kin at the trial, but he would hardly be the first human being to miscalculate affairs of the heart.
Tom

[RJNorton]

(02-27-2015 09:57 PM)Thomas Thorne Wrote:  There is a persistent story that Weichmann was quite smitten with Anna,a feeling she did not reciprocate.

Bettie Trindal writes that Weichmann had purchased the picture called Morning, Noon, and Night, and he gave it to Anna as a gift. The author writes that Weichmann expected a kiss but received a slap instead. At this point tears welled up in Weichmann's eyes, and he quickly left the parlor. Trindal includes a footnote for the story which says, "It is a basically accepted story among researchers that Lou Weichmann did, in fact, try to kiss Anna Surratt. To partially substantiate the claim, there exists a letter in the National Archives (W409JAO1865), written to Weichmann in February 1865, from Mrs. Clara Ritter of New York City. In her letter she wrote: "I hope you will bring dear Miss S----tt with you to call on me. I could love her for your sake, & they are all favorably disposed towards you I believe." Ref: Louis J. Weichmann, op. cit., p 471, endnote 9."

[Pamela]

From The Evidence, p. 1085 Gilbert G. Raynor, a clerk who worked with Weichmann:

"Have heard him talk about the sentiments of the Surratt's where he boarded. He spoke of them as having secessionist sympathies. He spoke of the ladies of the house more particularly. I never heard him say this of the young man (John Surratt). He came to the office one morning in a very great state of excitement and said that a young lady at the house had slapped him in the face on account of having a political quarrel with her."

[Gene C]

Cheer up Lou, it could have been worse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVkLSUi8ZhA