Where was John Surratt on April 14, 1865 ?

[L Verge]

(03-28-2017 04:49 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  From Anthony Pitch's "They Have Killed Papa Dead!"



Does this proves that John Wilkes Booth was the visitor at ca. 9 pm, or was it Richard Mitchell Smoot?

Honestly, I really don't know... Do you?

Roger,

Do you know what were the exact words of Anna's exclamation? "Think of THAT MAN BOOTH having called at this house ....", or "Think of THAT MAN having been here ...."

I just re-read that section in Weichmann's book this afternoon while tracking down the veracity of Booth being seen in the parlor when Surratt and Weichmann returned from Surrattsville. Weichmann does not say the name of Booth in his text, and I don't ever remember seeing it anywhere else except for what you just posted.

I must admit that I never fully read Pitch's book because I found nothing new in it. It was disappointing to me because he had flatly rejected my offer to have him visit the Hall files at Surratt House by saying that he was only going to use the primary source materials at the Library of Congress and that he was going to reveal new things. In my opinion, he did not live up to his own hype.

Kees, your observations on Smoot being the 9 pm visitor has come closer to being the truth than any other. It just seems to fit and to make sense, and I trust his later rendition of events as much as any other. I know that Elizabeth Trindal, Mary Surratt's supporter, did not like Smoot's book and dropped her Life membership in the Surratt Society because we sold the edited re-publication of it about ten years ago. That seems to say a lot in and of itself...

[Susan Higginbotham]

In his affidavit dated August 11, 1865, Weichmann writes that Anna said, "Oh, Ma! just think of that man's (John W. Booth) having been here an hour before the assassination!" We only have Weichmann's version of what Anna said, but it's clear from his parenthetical comment and from his earlier newspaper exchange with Brophy (July 26, 1865, where he writes that Booth visited the boardinghouse three times on April 14) that he thought her reference to "that man" meant Booth.

[RJNorton]

(03-28-2017 07:51 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  And who was "Miss Mitchell"? Another "Anna Ward", i.e. another mail courier?

Kees, please see Susan's post here. Also, Jim W.'s post that follows.

[RJNorton]

I have a question regarding Mary Surratt when she returned to the boardinghouse after her trip to Surrattsville. On the trip home she said she was expecting a gentleman visitor at about 9 P.M. She wouldn't tell Weichmann who it was.

Was it Smoot? Or was it Booth?

Weichmann writes, "She was very anxious to be at home at nine o'clock, saying that she had made an engagement with some gentleman to meet her at that hour."

Yet, even though she was expecting someone, she agreed to go to Good Friday church services with Eliza Holohan. According to Kate Larson, the two ladies departed after Booth's (possible) visit but prior to Smoot's. According to Bettie Trindal, the two ladies got as far as Dr. Evans' house and turned around due to poor weather. They returned to the boardinghouse, and very soon afterwards Smoot arrived.

To me this makes Mary's visit with Smoot "accidental;" if the weather were good she would have been at church when Smoot arrived.

My question: if Mary meant Smoot when she told Weichmann she expected a gentleman visitor, why did she agree to attend church services with Eliza Holohan?

[L Verge]

(03-29-2017 02:27 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  I have a question regarding Mary Surratt when she returned to the boardinghouse after her trip to Surrattsville. On the trip home she said she was expecting a gentleman visitor at about 9 P.M. She wouldn't tell Weichmann who it was.

Was it Smoot? Or was it Booth?

Weichmann writes, "She was very anxious to be at home at nine o'clock, saying that she had made an engagement with some gentleman to meet her at that hour."

Yet, even though she was expecting someone, she agreed to go to Good Friday church services with Eliza Holohan. According to Kate Larson, the two ladies departed after Booth's (possible) visit but prior to Smoot's. According to Bettie Trindal, the two ladies got as far as Dr. Evans' house and turned around due to poor weather. They returned to the boardinghouse, and very soon afterwards Smoot arrived.

To me this makes Mary's visit with Smoot "accidental;" if the weather were good she would have been at church when Smoot arrived.

My question: if Mary meant Smoot when she told Weichmann she expected a gentleman visitor, why did she agree to attend church services with Eliza Holohan?

I have always had a question about this, but from a different angle: Even though it was Good Friday, did any church (even the Roman Catholic ones) have services after 9 pm? Were the ladies really going to service, or were they just going to sit in a semi-vacant church and contemplate the meaning of the Lord's crucifixion?

I am one step down from Catholicism (an Episcopalian), and our Good Friday services consisted of three hours during the day (noon to 3 pm) and then a 7 pm service for those who had to work during the day.

Wasn't the purpose of dismissing the War Department employees (i.e. Weichmann) early that day to allow them to attend early services?

P.S. I am really in tune with Kees now that Smoot was the 9 pm visitor.

P.P.S. Another point that I am now chewing on is the question of Surratt with his new, "fashionable" coat. How many did he buy? The businessmen in Elmira talk about what Kees thinks is a Garibaldi jacket, but in at least one of his letters, John Surratt speaks of his new French pea jacket. Did he own two new coats? Where did he get the money to spend like a Kartrashian?

[Susan Higginbotham]

(03-29-2017 03:39 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(03-29-2017 02:27 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  I have a question regarding Mary Surratt when she returned to the boardinghouse after her trip to Surrattsville. On the trip home she said she was expecting a gentleman visitor at about 9 P.M. She wouldn't tell Weichmann who it was.

Was it Smoot? Or was it Booth?

Weichmann writes, "She was very anxious to be at home at nine o'clock, saying that she had made an engagement with some gentleman to meet her at that hour."

Yet, even though she was expecting someone, she agreed to go to Good Friday church services with Eliza Holohan. According to Kate Larson, the two ladies departed after Booth's (possible) visit but prior to Smoot's. According to Bettie Trindal, the two ladies got as far as Dr. Evans' house and turned around due to poor weather. They returned to the boardinghouse, and very soon afterwards Smoot arrived.

To me this makes Mary's visit with Smoot "accidental;" if the weather were good she would have been at church when Smoot arrived.

My question: if Mary meant Smoot when she told Weichmann she expected a gentleman visitor, why did she agree to attend church services with Eliza Holohan?

I have always had a question about this, but from a different angle: Even though it was Good Friday, did any church (even the Roman Catholic ones) have services after 9 pm? Were the ladies really going to service, or were they just going to sit in a semi-vacant church and contemplate the meaning of the Lord's crucifixion?

I am one step down from Catholicism (an Episcopalian), and our Good Friday services consisted of three hours during the day (noon to 3 pm) and then a 7 pm service for those who had to work during the day.

Wasn't the purpose of dismissing the War Department employees (i.e. Weichmann) early that day to allow them to attend early services?

P.S. I am really in tune with Kees now that Smoot was the 9 pm visitor.

P.P.S. Another point that I am now chewing on is the question of Surratt with his new, "fashionable" coat. How many did he buy? The businessmen in Elmira talk about what Kees thinks is a Garibaldi jacket, but in at least one of his letters, John Surratt speaks of his new French pea jacket. Did he own two new coats? Where did he get the money to spend like a Kartrashian?

Eliza Holohan testified at John Surratt's trial that Good Friday services at St. Patrick's began at 7:30 pm and lasted until 10 pm or later (vol. I, pp. 691-92). (She also testified that it was her suggestion that they go back home instead of continuing to church due to the disagreeable weather.)

[loetar44]

Roger and Laurie,

I was puzzling with the same today, had a busy day and right now finds the time to post the following.

What if Booth AND Smoot visited the boardinghouse? Booth at 9 PM and Smoot at 9.30 PM.?

Remember what is said about the 9 PM visit:
“The boarders were having supper in the street-level dining room when they heard the booted thuds of someone climbing the outside steps. The doorbell rang, and Mrs. Surratt answered it. By the sound of the footsteps the residents knew she had taken the person into the parlor above the dining room. About five minutes later the diners heard the visitor leave.”

And this wrote Smoot about his visit:
“I went direct to Mrs. Surratt's. As I approached the house I saw a woman standing on the porch. Her face was so hidden in the capacious depths of a huge sunbonnet that I could not see her features. As I started to ascend the steps the woman turned abruptly and went into the house, almost closing the door, and at the same time asking: 'Who is it?' I gave my name. The door was quickly reopened, and I was admitted into the presence of Mrs. Surratt.”

Two different stories!

It was Weichmann who told (on July 15, 1865, after Mary’s execution) the first story, after John P. Brophy tried to (as Weichmann called it) “blacken his character”. In his account he wanted the public to think that there was little doubt that Mary Surratt was guilty and that all what was said about his character were lies. He didn't believe that Mary was an innocent woman. He declared: “That a woman so kind, so compassionate, so generous and so religious, should have been cognizant of plots to capture or assassinate the President of the United States, is hardly to be believed. Yet it is strangely true.” So, he wanted to silence Brophy, and many others, maybe also his own conscience. Therefore he told about Mary’s actions and words, even that she deserved death. In Weichmann’s words: “She could have prevented all. But no; she was too much infatuated; she loved the South too much.” Already before the 4th of March Mrs. SURRATT was continually remarking to everybody that something was going to happen to "Old Abe". She wept and closed her house when Lee surrendered. When the illumination took place her home remained dark and silent. And on Good Friday Booth visited her THREE times. In reference to the THIRD visit she was (according to Weichmann) very anxious to be at home at 9 o'clock, (returning from Surrattsville) saying she had made an engagement with some gentleman, who was to meet her at that hour. I asked her if it was BOOTH, she answered neither yes nor no. If it was Booth, why not told that? Was that because she expected someone else (THAT MAN)?

When about a mile from the city, on Weichmann’s and Mary’s return from Surrattsville, and having from the top of a hill caught a view of Washington swimming in a flood of light and glory, raising her hands, she said, according to Weichmann: "I am afraid all this rejoicing will turn into mourning, all this glory into sadness." Weichmann asked her what she meant. She replied that after sunshine there was always a storm, and that the people were too proud and licentious, and that God would punish them. After telling this Weichmann told of the 9 pm visit. But was he really truthful? I suspect that he wanted the people to think that it was Booth who visited Mary, but he NEVER saw Booth, only heard the steps of a man. If Mary spoke with Booth one hour before the assassination, she was guilty, because she could have prevented it. But Mary did not prevent it, so it was obvious that Mary was guilty, and Weichmann was hoping that the public would judge him fairly, by telling that Mary was guilty.

Roger, you say that Mary agreed to go to Good Friday church services with Eliza Holohan. I think that Mary and Eliza indeed went to church, but returned due to poor wether. They arrived in the boardinghouse, just at the moment Smoot arrived, because he wrote: “I saw a woman standing on the porch. Her face was so hidden in the capacious depths of a huge sunbonnet that I could not see her features.” Was this woman Eliza Holohan? After the door was closed Smoot gave his name, after that Mary reopened the door quickly.

Smoot’s story make sense. It is in accordance with Kate Larson and Betty Trindal. I don’t think Smoot’s visit was “accidental”, Mary expected him (remember his visit on April 12th). Maybe the women went with the intention to return between 9 or 10 pm. Smoot said he was there at 9:30 pm.

According to Kate Larson, the two ladies departed after Booth's visit. In that case she had to depart AFTER 9 pm. And why did Weichmann NOT notice that? I have problems to believe Weichmann 100%.

If there were TWO visits that evening (Booth and Smoot) why did Weichmann than NEVER mention that? Because there were no TWO visits, but ONE (Smoot’s visit). It all fits exactly with Smoot’s story.

BTW: Laurie thank you for your support. I really do think that Smoot was the one and Weichmann was only clearing his own conscience, now Mary was dead, by publicly saying incriminating things about her, only to show that her punishment was just and he did his duty.

[L Verge]

(03-29-2017 05:35 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  Roger and Laurie,

I was puzzling with the same today, had a busy day and right now finds the time to post the following.

What if Booth AND Smoot visited the boardinghouse? Booth at 9 PM and Smoot at 9.30 PM.?

Remember what is said about the 9 PM visit:
“The boarders were having supper in the street-level dining room when they heard the booted thuds of someone climbing the outside steps. The doorbell rang, and Mrs. Surratt answered it. By the sound of the footsteps the residents knew she had taken the person into the parlor above the dining room. About five minutes later the diners heard the visitor leave.”

And this wrote Smoot about his visit:
“I went direct to Mrs. Surratt's. As I approached the house I saw a woman standing on the porch. Her face was so hidden in the capacious depths of a huge sunbonnet that I could not see her features. As I started to ascend the steps the woman turned abruptly and went into the house, almost closing the door, and at the same time asking: 'Who is it?' I gave my name. The door was quickly reopened, and I was admitted into the presence of Mrs. Surratt.”

Two different stories!

It was Weichmann who told (on July 15, 1865, after Mary’s execution) the first story, after John P. Brophy tried to (as Weichmann called it) “blacken his character”. In his account he wanted the public to think that there was little doubt that Mary Surratt was guilty and that all what was said about his character were lies. He didn't believe that Mary was an innocent woman. He declared: “That a woman so kind, so compassionate, so generous and so religious, should have been cognizant of plots to capture or assassinate the President of the United States, is hardly to be believed. Yet it is strangely true.” So, he wanted to silence Brophy, and many others, maybe also his own conscience. Therefore he told about Mary’s actions and words, even that she deserved death. In Weichmann’s words: “She could have prevented all. But no; she was too much infatuated; she loved the South too much.” Already before the 4th of March Mrs. SURRATT was continually remarking to everybody that something was going to happen to "Old Abe". She wept and closed her house when Lee surrendered. When the illumination took place her home remained dark and silent. And on Good Friday Booth visited her THREE times. In reference to the THIRD visit she was (according to Weichmann) very anxious to be at home at 9 o'clock, (returning from Surrattsville) saying she had made an engagement with some gentleman, who was to meet her at that hour. I asked her if it was BOOTH, she answered neither yes nor no. If it was Booth, why not told that? Was that because she expected someone else (THAT MAN)?

When about a mile from the city, on Weichmann’s and Mary’s return from Surrattsville, and having from the top of a hill caught a view of Washington swimming in a flood of light and glory, raising her hands, she said, according to Weichmann: "I am afraid all this rejoicing will turn into mourning, all this glory into sadness." Weichmann asked her what she meant. She replied that after sunshine there was always a storm, and that the people were too proud and licentious, and that God would punish them. After telling this Weichmann told of the 9 pm visit. But was he really truthful? I suspect that he wanted the people to think that it was Booth who visited Mary, but he NEVER saw Booth, only heard the steps of a man. If Mary spoke with Booth one hour before the assassination, she was guilty, because she could have prevented it. But Mary did not prevent it, so it was obvious that Mary was guilty, and Weichmann was hoping that the public would judge him fairly, by telling that Mary was guilty.

Roger, you say that Mary agreed to go to Good Friday church services with Eliza Holohan. I think that Mary and Eliza indeed went to church, but returned due to poor wether. They arrived in the boardinghouse, just at the moment Smoot arrived, because he wrote: “I saw a woman standing on the porch. Her face was so hidden in the capacious depths of a huge sunbonnet that I could not see her features.” Was this woman Eliza Holohan? After the door was closed Smoot gave his name, after that Mary reopened the door quickly.

Smoot’s story make sense. It is in accordance with Kate Larson and Betty Trindal. I don’t think Smoot’s visit was “accidental”, Mary expected him (remember his visit on April 12th). Maybe the women went with the intention to return between 9 or 10 pm. Smoot said he was there at 9:30 pm.

According to Kate Larson, the two ladies departed after Booth's visit. In that case she had to depart AFTER 9 pm. And why did Weichmann NOT notice that? I have problems to believe Weichmann 100%.

If there were TWO visits that evening (Booth and Smoot) why did Weichmann than NEVER mention that? Because there were no TWO visits, but ONE (Smoot’s visit). It all fits exactly with Smoot’s story.

BTW: Laurie thank you for your support. I really do think that Smoot was the one and Weichmann was only clearing his own conscience, now Mary was dead, by publicly saying incriminating things about her, only to show that her punishment was just and he did his duty.

We really need to rethink the timeline of Mary's activities that day. She never left DC until about 2 pm, if I remember correctly. Unless they were pushing the horse(s) at a fast pace, they would not have arrived at the tavern much before 4 pm. They then waited around for Lloyd to return from Upper Marlboro.

Wasn't it about 6 pm or later when they finally saw Lloyd, had to stop to let him fix the buggy, and then get on their way to DC? The bridges supposedly were closed at 9 pm, so they did manage to get back inside the city before then.

They then took dinner (which Weichmann terms as tea). If it was prepared ahead of time (by Susan Jackson or Anna and Olivia), it would still have to be warmed up. Since it was Good Friday, it was likely a sparse meal; but that would still make it close to 9 pm by the time they finished eating. Had the others eaten before they arrived? Standard supper in those days was a lighter meal served about 7 pm. The Holohans were paying "customers." Didn't they need to be fed on time - especially if Eliza planned on going to church? If the church service had already started before Mary arrived home, why didn't Eliza (and her children) go on ahead? Had Anna and Olivia gone during the day?

Did a clock chime, or did Weichmann look at his pocket watch to determine exactly what time it was that they heard footsteps? Or, did he guesstimate when he divulged his stories to the authorities? Did he actually hear the arrival of Smoot?

Now, let's consider the weather that night. I have seen references to a light rain while Booth was exiting the city. Has that been confirmed? Was it raining at 9:30 pm? Did Smoot mention rain when he saw the woman in what was obviously a scuttle bonnet (not a sunbonnet)?

Booth would shoot Lincoln within 45 minutes if we go with the 9:30 hour. Was there a heavy rainstorm at that time? Was the dying Lincoln carried across Tenth Street in a storm? Did the Presidential party arrive at the theater in rain? Was it a brief, freak shower that started and forced Mary and Eliza to turn around and go home instead of going to church? If it was raining already, why did they start out in the first place?

Had Mary been to church earlier that day? Was she feeling guilty that she had shirked her Catholic duties? Instead of just asking Weichmann to pray for her intentions, did she feel the need to sit in a confessional? Were they offering confessions on Good Friday?

My books at home are packed away, and I don't have time to seek answers for my questions with the conference in just 48 hours. Am I making sense with my questions or just frivolously ruminating on ideas? Have these little bits and pieces been considered by various authors, or have they just repeated the standard story that Weichmann may have embellished a bit (or failed to give other details)?

[Susan Higginbotham]

(03-29-2017 07:11 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(03-29-2017 05:35 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  Roger and Laurie,

I was puzzling with the same today, had a busy day and right now finds the time to post the following.

What if Booth AND Smoot visited the boardinghouse? Booth at 9 PM and Smoot at 9.30 PM.?

Remember what is said about the 9 PM visit:
“The boarders were having supper in the street-level dining room when they heard the booted thuds of someone climbing the outside steps. The doorbell rang, and Mrs. Surratt answered it. By the sound of the footsteps the residents knew she had taken the person into the parlor above the dining room. About five minutes later the diners heard the visitor leave.”

And this wrote Smoot about his visit:
“I went direct to Mrs. Surratt's. As I approached the house I saw a woman standing on the porch. Her face was so hidden in the capacious depths of a huge sunbonnet that I could not see her features. As I started to ascend the steps the woman turned abruptly and went into the house, almost closing the door, and at the same time asking: 'Who is it?' I gave my name. The door was quickly reopened, and I was admitted into the presence of Mrs. Surratt.”

Two different stories!

It was Weichmann who told (on July 15, 1865, after Mary’s execution) the first story, after John P. Brophy tried to (as Weichmann called it) “blacken his character”. In his account he wanted the public to think that there was little doubt that Mary Surratt was guilty and that all what was said about his character were lies. He didn't believe that Mary was an innocent woman. He declared: “That a woman so kind, so compassionate, so generous and so religious, should have been cognizant of plots to capture or assassinate the President of the United States, is hardly to be believed. Yet it is strangely true.” So, he wanted to silence Brophy, and many others, maybe also his own conscience. Therefore he told about Mary’s actions and words, even that she deserved death. In Weichmann’s words: “She could have prevented all. But no; she was too much infatuated; she loved the South too much.” Already before the 4th of March Mrs. SURRATT was continually remarking to everybody that something was going to happen to "Old Abe". She wept and closed her house when Lee surrendered. When the illumination took place her home remained dark and silent. And on Good Friday Booth visited her THREE times. In reference to the THIRD visit she was (according to Weichmann) very anxious to be at home at 9 o'clock, (returning from Surrattsville) saying she had made an engagement with some gentleman, who was to meet her at that hour. I asked her if it was BOOTH, she answered neither yes nor no. If it was Booth, why not told that? Was that because she expected someone else (THAT MAN)?

When about a mile from the city, on Weichmann’s and Mary’s return from Surrattsville, and having from the top of a hill caught a view of Washington swimming in a flood of light and glory, raising her hands, she said, according to Weichmann: "I am afraid all this rejoicing will turn into mourning, all this glory into sadness." Weichmann asked her what she meant. She replied that after sunshine there was always a storm, and that the people were too proud and licentious, and that God would punish them. After telling this Weichmann told of the 9 pm visit. But was he really truthful? I suspect that he wanted the people to think that it was Booth who visited Mary, but he NEVER saw Booth, only heard the steps of a man. If Mary spoke with Booth one hour before the assassination, she was guilty, because she could have prevented it. But Mary did not prevent it, so it was obvious that Mary was guilty, and Weichmann was hoping that the public would judge him fairly, by telling that Mary was guilty.

Roger, you say that Mary agreed to go to Good Friday church services with Eliza Holohan. I think that Mary and Eliza indeed went to church, but returned due to poor wether. They arrived in the boardinghouse, just at the moment Smoot arrived, because he wrote: “I saw a woman standing on the porch. Her face was so hidden in the capacious depths of a huge sunbonnet that I could not see her features.” Was this woman Eliza Holohan? After the door was closed Smoot gave his name, after that Mary reopened the door quickly.

Smoot’s story make sense. It is in accordance with Kate Larson and Betty Trindal. I don’t think Smoot’s visit was “accidental”, Mary expected him (remember his visit on April 12th). Maybe the women went with the intention to return between 9 or 10 pm. Smoot said he was there at 9:30 pm.

According to Kate Larson, the two ladies departed after Booth's visit. In that case she had to depart AFTER 9 pm. And why did Weichmann NOT notice that? I have problems to believe Weichmann 100%.

If there were TWO visits that evening (Booth and Smoot) why did Weichmann than NEVER mention that? Because there were no TWO visits, but ONE (Smoot’s visit). It all fits exactly with Smoot’s story.

BTW: Laurie thank you for your support. I really do think that Smoot was the one and Weichmann was only clearing his own conscience, now Mary was dead, by publicly saying incriminating things about her, only to show that her punishment was just and he did his duty.

We really need to rethink the timeline of Mary's activities that day. She never left DC until about 2 pm, if I remember correctly. Unless they were pushing the horse(s) at a fast pace, they would not have arrived at the tavern much before 4 pm. They then waited around for Lloyd to return from Upper Marlboro.

Wasn't it about 6 pm or later when they finally saw Lloyd, had to stop to let him fix the buggy, and then get on their way to DC? The bridges supposedly were closed at 9 pm, so they did manage to get back inside the city before then.

They then took dinner (which Weichmann terms as tea). If it was prepared ahead of time (by Susan Jackson or Anna and Olivia), it would still have to be warmed up. Since it was Good Friday, it was likely a sparse meal; but that would still make it close to 9 pm by the time they finished eating. Had the others eaten before they arrived? Standard supper in those days was a lighter meal served about 7 pm. The Holohans were paying "customers." Didn't they need to be fed on time - especially if Eliza planned on going to church? If the church service had already started before Mary arrived home, why didn't Eliza (and her children) go on ahead? Had Anna and Olivia gone during the day?

Did a clock chime, or did Weichmann look at his pocket watch to determine exactly what time it was that they heard footsteps? Or, did he guesstimate when he divulged his stories to the authorities? Did he actually hear the arrival of Smoot?

Now, let's consider the weather that night. I have seen references to a light rain while Booth was exiting the city. Has that been confirmed? Was it raining at 9:30 pm? Did Smoot mention rain when he saw the woman in what was obviously a scuttle bonnet (not a sunbonnet)?

Booth would shoot Lincoln within 45 minutes if we go with the 9:30 hour. Was there a heavy rainstorm at that time? Was the dying Lincoln carried across Tenth Street in a storm? Did the Presidential party arrive at the theater in rain? Was it a brief, freak shower that started and forced Mary and Eliza to turn around and go home instead of going to church? If it was raining already, why did they start out in the first place?

Had Mary been to church earlier that day? Was she feeling guilty that she had shirked her Catholic duties? Instead of just asking Weichmann to pray for her intentions, did she feel the need to sit in a confessional? Were they offering confessions on Good Friday?

My books at home are packed away, and I don't have time to seek answers for my questions with the conference in just 48 hours. Am I making sense with my questions or just frivolously ruminating on ideas? Have these little bits and pieces been considered by various authors, or have they just repeated the standard story that Weichmann may have embellished a bit (or failed to give other details)?

According to Nora Fitzpatrick, Anna was sick on April 14 and went to bed early that evening. My guess is that either Olivia, being Mary's niece, or Nora, being close to the family, might have helped with meals in Mary's absence and Anna's indisposition.

Nora also testified that she and Mary had gone to communion on Thursday, April 13, and Eliza Holohan testified that she and Mary frequently attended church during Lent.

[RJNorton]

(03-28-2017 04:49 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  Roger,

Do you know what were the exact words of Anna's exclamation? "Think of THAT MAN BOOTH having called at this house ....", or "Think of THAT MAN having been here ...."

Kees, in The Evidence the quote is as follows:

"Think of that man Booth having called at this house not more than an hour and a half before the assassination."

https://books.google.com/books?id=GvYpUe...22&f=false

[loetar44]

(03-30-2017 04:37 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 04:49 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  Roger,

Do you know what were the exact words of Anna's exclamation? "Think of THAT MAN BOOTH having called at this house ....", or "Think of THAT MAN having been here ...."

Kees, in The Evidence the quote is as follows:

"Think of that man Booth having called at this house not more than an hour and a half before the assassination."

https://books.google.com/books?id=GvYpUe...22&f=false

Thanks Roger,

Some remarks.

The Philadelphia Sunday Dispatch of July 18, 1865 published Weichmann’s letter to the editor; his answer to the attacks upon his character, made since the execution of Mary Surratt. He wrote:

Philadelphia, Saturday, July 15, 1865.
To the Editors of the Sunday Despatch (sic):
Will you favor me by publishing the following STATEMENT in your valuable paper?
Etc. Etc.

A couple of hours after the assassination the Surratt House was visited by McDevitt and his detectives, searching for Booth and Surratt. Weichmann wrote in his statement about this incident (verbatim):

---
When the detectives arrived at 3 o'clock the next morning, I rapped at her door for permission to let them in.

"For God's sake let them come in! I expected the house to be searched," said she.

When the detectives had gone, and when her daughter, almost frantic, cried out, "Oh! ma, just think of that man's having been here an hour before the assassination! I am afraid it will bring suspicion upon us!"

"Anna, come what will," she replied, "I am resigned. I think that J. Wilkes Booth was only an instrument in the hands of the Almighty to punish this proud and licentious people."
---

It’s my understanding that this statement is the ONLY statement Weichmann did in reference to Anna’s exclamation. He says THAT MAN and not THAT MAN BOOTH.

I’m wondering what source “The Evidence” is/was using. Where is Edward Steers? We need him!

[L Verge]

(03-30-2017 04:37 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 04:49 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  Roger,

Do you know what were the exact words of Anna's exclamation? "Think of THAT MAN BOOTH having called at this house ....", or "Think of THAT MAN having been here ...."

Kees, in The Evidence the quote is as follows:

"Think of that man Booth having called at this house not more than an hour and a half before the assassination."

https://books.google.com/books?id=GvYpUe...22&f=false

That link to The Evidence did not include the page on which that appears, page 1331. In going to the book, myself (it is always by my desk at work), I found it as being "items not brought out in the examination of Weichmann, or that he has since recalled." That source makes the insertion of "Booth" spurious in and of itself to me. It is also stated here that Anna made that statement at the breakfast table the next morning, not at the time that the detectives were there.

It is also interesting, given what Susan posted about Anna being sick, that the same statement has Anna, Olivia, and Honora making so much noise in the parlor after dinner (and the so-called visit by Booth) that Mrs. Surratt ordered them all to bed early... Guess Anna had a quick recovery.

On another issue relative to the query as to who "Miss Mitchell" was (see Susan's previous post), there is a statement given by Anna M. Weber, the landlady to Miss Anne Mitchell, residing at 325 Fifth Street. Mrs. Weber describes Mitchell has having deep Southern sympathies and having a beaux named George Jarboe (aka George Smith), who evidently traveled through the lines and had been arrested a few months earlier, taken the oath, and then left town. He visited Mitchell last on the day of the assassination, coming to her office at Towers Printing Office to say good-bye.

Jarboe is a very familiar name in Charles County, so I suspect that Miss Mitchell's arrest had to do with George's activities (and maybe her own) and not with Surratt -- unless young Surratt had yet another series of aliases.

[loetar44]

From: “Joseph M. Perillo, Screed for a Film and Pillar of Classical Contract Law: Shuey v. United States”.

In this long piece of writing Perillo writes in the introduction: “Few contract cases could provide a plot for a motion picture. However, Shuey v. United States provides more than enough raw material for an action film. As one commentator has written, "If it had been written as fiction, no one would believe it; the odd twists of fate in John H. Surratt's escape, capture, subsequent escape, and final recapture are too contrived for even the most gullible of readers. But the events of his sixteen months on the run, as implausible as the plot of a bad thriller, actually happened.”

On p. 927 I found the following:

“His [Weichmann’s] most damning testimony against Mrs. Surratt before the Military Commission was to the effect that Booth called on her at two o'clock and SOMEONE called at nine o'clock on the night of the assassination. The second of these visits, if it took place, was one and a quarter hours before Lincoln's murder. The inference was that the caller was Booth. (footnote 84). In his [Weichmann] initial statement to the police he said, "Booth was at Mrs. Surratt's house at half-past two o'clock on the day of the assassination." (footnote 85) There was no mention of a nine o'clock visit.

Footnote 84: In his published narrative he identifies the caller as Booth. Id. at 174. In this narrative he discusses the testimony of other boarders at the later trial of Surratt, but ignores the testimony of Olivia Jenkins, who testified that the caller was a naval officer named Scott who had come to deliver some papers for her. II The Trial of John H. Surratt, supra note 50, at 746. ---> see post 164

Footnote 85: Roscoe, supra note 11, at 538 (citing National Archives, War Dept. Records, File "W," R.B., JAO, p. 99).

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcon...ontext=flr

Interesting! Was Booth only at 2 pm at Surratt's boardinghouse? No THREE visits that day, but ONE !!! No mention of the first (?) visit in the morning (after his haircut by Charles Wood in Booker & Stewart's barber shop).

[loetar44]

Relevant parts of Olivia Jenkins’ testimony on Saturday, July 13, 1867.

Miss Olivia Jenkins sworn and examined.
By Mr. Merrick :

(1)
Q. Did you know John Surratt?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recollect the day the President was assassinated ?
A. Yes, sir ; very well.
Q. It was on Good Friday, was it not ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was John Surratt about the house Good Friday ?
A, No, sir.
Q. When had you last seen him before Good Friday ?
A. About two weeks before.
////////
(2)
Q. Did you take supper at Mrs. Surratt's on Good Friday?
A. No, sir ; I did not go to the table that evening. Miss Fitzpatrick went down to get supper. I did not go down.
Q. Do you recollect when they were at supper?
A. Yes, sir,
Q. Was the bell rung while they were at supper ?
A. Yes, sir ; the bell was rung after we were at supper, A gentleman called and left two papers for me.
/////////
(3)
Q. Did any one ring the bell while you were at the table ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who answered the bell ?
A. Miss Anna Surratt.
Q. Did you know who called ?
A. A gentleman by the name of Scott, of the navy ; he left two papers for me
Q. Was the bell rung at any other time while you were at supper ?
A. No, sir ; I did not hear it.
/////
(4)
Q. Did you hear any footsteps going into the parlor while you were at supper ?
A. No, sir.
Q. After you got through supper on the night of the assassination, Good Friday night, where did you all go ?
A. We went up into the parlor.
Q. Who went up into the parlor ?
A. Miss Anna Surratt, Mrs. Surratt, Mr. Weichmann, myself and Miss Fitzpatrick.
Q. Did you engage in general conversation, or what did you do ?
A. Miss Fitzpatrick and I were teasing Mr. Weichmann. Miss Anna Surratt retired very early. She was sick.
Q. How long did you and Miss Fitzpatrick keep up that entertainment ? How long were you there together ?
A. I guess we were there till near 10 o'clock.
////////
(5)
Q. Tell these gentlemen whether or not you noticed anything peculiar in Mrs. Surratt's manner that night.
A, No, sir ; she seemed the same as usual. I never saw any excitement about her whatever.
Q. Did you observe her walking up and down the room in a nervous, excited condition ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Were you in the parlor all the time Mr. Weichmann was there that night ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you hear Mrs. Surratt ask Mr. Weichmann to pray for her intentions ?
A. No, sir.
////////
(6)
Q. After the night of the assassination, on that morning, after the detectives went away, were you in the parlor ?
A. I do not remember. I think I came into the parlor that morning. I think I came down stairs.
Q. Were Mrs. Surratt, Miss Anna, and Miss Fitzpatrick in the parlor ?
A. Yes, sir ; and Mr. Weichmann.
Q. Did you at any time hear Anna say anything like this: " O, ma, all this will bring suspicion on our house ; just to think of that man having been here an hour before the murder !"
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you hear Mrs. Surratt say, " Anna, come what will, I think John Wilkes Booth was only an instrument in the hands of Almighty God to punish this proud and licentious people !"
A. No, sir.
Q; You heard nothing of that kind?
A. Nothing at all.

[Jim Woodall]

(03-30-2017 09:11 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 04:37 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 04:49 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  Roger,

Do you know what were the exact words of Anna's exclamation? "Think of THAT MAN BOOTH having called at this house ....", or "Think of THAT MAN having been here ...."

Kees, in The Evidence the quote is as follows:

"Think of that man Booth having called at this house not more than an hour and a half before the assassination."

https://books.google.com/books?id=GvYpUe...22&f=false

That link to The Evidence did not include the page on which that appears, page 1331. In going to the book, myself (it is always by my desk at work), I found it as being "items not brought out in the examination of Weichmann, or that he has since recalled." That source makes the insertion of "Booth" spurious in and of itself to me. It is also stated here that Anna made that statement at the breakfast table the next morning, not at the time that the detectives were there.

It is also interesting, given what Susan posted about Anna being sick, that the same statement has Anna, Olivia, and Honora making so much noise in the parlor after dinner (and the so-called visit by Booth) that Mrs. Surratt ordered them all to bed early... Guess Anna had a quick recovery.

On another issue relative to the query as to who "Miss Mitchell" was (see Susan's previous post), there is a statement given by Anna M. Weber, the landlady to Miss Anne Mitchell, residing at 325 Fifth Street. Mrs. Weber describes Mitchell has having deep Southern sympathies and having a beaux named George Jarboe (aka George Smith), who evidently traveled through the lines and had been arrested a few months earlier, taken the oath, and then left town. He visited Mitchell last on the day of the assassination, coming to her office at Towers Printing Office to say good-bye.

Jarboe is a very familiar name in Charles County, so I suspect that Miss Mitchell's arrest had to do with George's activities (and maybe her own) and not with Surratt -- unless young Surratt had yet another series of aliases.

There is a George Jarboe (only one in '60s census in DC and Maryland) who is the brother of Daniel W Jarboe. Daniel killed Dan Nally, both Navy Yard blacksmiths, for refusing to marry his sister after being with her in 1856. DA for the trial was Philip Barton Key, who was later killed by Dan Sickles who would employ the Jarboe trial as precedence for temp insanity. Jarboe's defense attorney, Joseph H Bradley, would later defend John Surratt. Jarboe was not found guilty.

thishillishome.com recently did a 3-part blog on Jarboe's trial.

The third part discusses the above comments.

George B Jarboe joined with the confederate unit, Co E of 1st Reg Virginia Volunteers in Apr '61 at the age of 22. He was signed up for it out of Washington, D.C.

While discussing Jarboes, of interest is a Judson Jarboe. In trial testimony, he was seen with Mudd outside of the Surratt house, supposedly. A Judson Jarboe was arrested in 1861 for the murder of John Ogden at the Spaldings election site at Long Old Fields (now Forestville).