The Case For Mrs. Surratt

[RJNorton]

Was Mary telling the truth when she said she did not recognize Powell (dressed as a laborer)? How bad was her eyesight? How close was she to Powell when she denied knowing him? (Kate Larson estimates three feet - is this about right?) I think all books mention Powell had previously been at the boardinghouse, but not all mention Mary had actually seen Powell in a different place as she had visited him at the Herndon House.

[wpbinzel]

(10-02-2016 04:01 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Was Mary telling the truth when she said she did not recognize Powell (dressed as a laborer)? How bad was her eyesight? How close was she to Powell when she denied knowing him? (Kate Larson estimates three feet - is this about right?) I think all books mention Powell had previously been at the boardinghouse, but not all mention Mary had actually seen Powell in a different place as she had visited him at the Herndon House.

Roger, thanks to the writings of Laurie Verge, I start from the position that Mary Surratt was no shrinking violet and probably a lot shrewder than we generally give her credit. Most of the conspirators had come through her boardinghouse door. Consequently, even if Booth did not inform her of the details of the plot, Mrs. Surratt had inside information. Unless she was "simple-minded," by the evening of Monday, April 17th, she likely had more than an inkling about the identity of Booth's accomplices. It seems probable that she had a pretty good idea that Powell was Seward's attacker. So, other than Booth himself, the last person she wanted to see in her house at that moment was Lewis Powell. In my opinion, Mrs. Surratt knew who Powell was and what he had done. In an effort to avoid being associated with him, she resorted to the tactic she used throughout her other interrogations; she lied.

For that reason, I believe that the defense's arguments about Mrs. Surratt's eyesight, the lighting in the house, Powell's "disguise," etc., were all red herrings.

---

I should add a tip of my USA Ryder Cup cap to Kate Larson as well.

[Eva Elisabeth]

I agree on the assessments and your conclusions/opinions of your two latest posts, Bill. As for eyesight - there's more than that to recognize someone. Powell to my understanding was remarkably tall and athletic. Then there's also the voice, the entire appearance.

[wpbinzel]

(10-02-2016 02:51 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  I agree on the assessments and your conclusions/opinions of your two latest posts, Bill. As for eyesight - there's more than that to recognize someone. Powell to my understanding was remarkably tall and athletic. Then there's also the voice, the entire appearance.

Thanks, Eva. Mary's immediate and vehement denial of knowing Powell, in my opinion, also discounts the bad light, poor eyesight argument. If she wasn't sure who Powell was because she couldn't get a good look at him -- and if she was innocent -- she would have said "Bring over that lamp." Instead, that "religious and pious woman" played her best card by invoking God's name and trying to lie her way out of it.

[L Verge]

Okay, scholars, I'm seeking assistance with the approval of two students and their teacher in Pennsylvania. I was contacted by them last month because they have chosen Mary Surratt's primary defense lawyer, Frederick Aiken, as their subject for the National History Day competition in in the spring of this coming year. The 2017 theme is "Taking a Stand in History."

They found that virtually nothing was known about Aiken until Surratt Society member and member of this forum (Christine Christensen of Utah) did a fantastic job of research. I quickly sent them Christine's 30-page bio on Aiken and arranged for them to visit the Surratt House and the James O. Hall Research Center on October 28. They are now at the stage where they want to interview people in the history field, and I hope that some of you will post thoughts that I can pass on to them. Here are a few of the questions that they have hit me with:

1. How did the Surratt case alter future trials involving women? (I have warned them to distinguish between federal and state cases).
2. How did the trial affect Aiken's law career?
3. How did the public react to Aiken's stand and his defense of Mary Surratt (I sent them to chroniclingamerica - even Catholic papers had different positions).
4. How did members of the U.S. military react to Aiken? (This could be a tough one.)
5. How did his contemporaries in the legal field as well as the military view him during the trial?

I have also alerted them to read up on laws of war, conspiracy law, vicarious liability, etc. I hope they also catch Aiken's dealings with the Democratic Party before the war (and after) which might have influenced his reputation during the trial as well as post-war.

I will share your thoughts with them, but I caution you to phrase your replies in terms that sound like teenagers, not well-read enthusiasts. One of my staff members is a judge at the National Finals held at the University of Maryland each year. I am going to have her discuss strategies, tricks, etc. that judges look for.

[L Verge]

Just want to move this post back in the spotlight to make sure that some of you see it and respond to the questions. Thanks.

[Gene C]

Didn't Christine write a paper about Aiken, and does the Surratt Society have a copy of it, or is it online somewhere?

If I recall, Aiken's legal career takes a nose dive two or three years after the trial, and he returns to journalism.
Has anyone ever uncovered a photo of him yet?

[L Verge]

(10-06-2016 09:23 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Didn't Christine write a paper about Aiken, and does the Surratt Society have a copy of it, or is it online somewhere?

If I recall, Aiken's legal career takes a nose dive two or three years after the trial, and he returns to journalism.
Has anyone ever uncovered a photo of him yet?

Gene - See paragraph 2 of my first post. I sent them a copy of Christine's excellent work about a month ago. These are questions that they have generated from that 30-page treatise. And no, I don't think anyone has come up with a photo. His legal career did peak within a few years - and he passed a bad check.

[Gene C]

Ooops! I saw that, but it just didn't sink in. I'll have to make another trip to the coffee pot.

[RJNorton]

(10-06-2016 09:23 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Has anyone ever uncovered a photo of him yet?

Gene, I did another search last summer, but I drew a blank. It's most likely in the same drawer as the photos of John Lloyd, John F. Parker, and Peanut John.