My Journey on Lincoln's Assassination

[Dennis Urban]

When one reads the whole of what Smoot wrote, several holes and questionable information appears including the reference above to the stage crossing the Long Bridge at 10 pm. I have not seen this written elsewhere but the schedule of that public conveyance should be able to be checked. Was not the Long Bridge (today the 14th Street bridge) guarded and with restricted crossings on the night of April 14th? Smoot also mentions Booth had $6,500 in U.S. currency on him when he committed the assassination. This is written nowhere else that I know of. If true, how would Smoot know that detail, why did Booth not mention it, and what happened to the money?

Credible is his mention of the route Booth, Herold and Atzerott were to take to access his concealed large boat on King's Creek and the changing of the horses at the village of TB. I do believe that it is possible that Smoot is the person who visited Mary Surratt on the 9:00 PM hour on the 14th. However, to make a special trip to Washington City on the night of Good Friday, April 14 to seek out John Surratt, not knowing if he was in the city, to collect the balance of his money for the sale of the boat seems a stretch.

Like so many other statements written years after the fact (this being written circa 1903), they make for interesting reading but must be taken with a large dose of salt.

[L Verge]

Roger - I believe that your reference to Smoot's statement years later is accurate. First, Mary Surratt's actions the afternoon of the assassination were chiefly related to getting money due from John Nothey in order to pay the Calverts for land that Mr. Surratt had bought 13 years before and never finished paying on. Because it was Good Friday, Weichmann had the afternoon off and was recruited as the Uber driver for the trip to Surrattsville.

As he was leaving the parlor to get transportation, Booth arrived and shook hands with Weichmann, who then left to mail a letter and rent the rig. When he returned a short time later, Booth was still there talking to Mrs. Surratt, but left shortly thereafter. Weichmann claimed he never heard what was said. He and Mrs. Surratt then left - with the package that Booth asked to have delivered to the tavern.

The drive out to Surrattsvile would have taken about two hours in those days, and they arrived about 4:30. When Lloyd failed to arrive, Weichmann and Surratt were ready to leave; but then Lloyd showed up, unloaded fish and oysters, and had a conversation with his landlady and Booth's package was delivered. There was another delay in leaving while Lloyd repaired the buggy. I suspect that they never left Surrattsville until about six o'clock, which would put them back in the city around eight. The bridge into the city that they needed to use would be closed as of 9 pm.

The male visitor at the boardinghouse around nine might have been Smoot - or it more likely was James F. Scott, who lived about two blocks down H Street and had gotten mail for Olivia Jenkins by mistake. I certainly do not agree with some claims that it was Booth returning yet again. I have yet to figure out whether or not he visited once or twice that day - once in the morning when he learned of the proposed trip to Surrattsville and again in the afternoon to bring the field glasses OR just in the afternoon with package in hand.

Some folks ask why Scott arrived at 9 at night to just deliver mail. He was a government employee (who may not have taken advantage of having the afternoon off) and, with it being Good Friday, church services occurring all day may have made the visit more convenient to finding folks at home later in the evening?

Personally, I think Weichmann and Lloyd told the truth - probably tinged with a bit of self-preservation. And, I also think that Mary Surratt was guilty of "vicarious liability," the English common law that formed our definition of "conspiracy" in 1865. Each conspirator is essentially responsible for all the crimes committed by fellow conspirators, if the crimes were committed in furtherance of the original conspiracy.

An earlier comment was made about the investigation being sloppy. First, authorities were focused on war, not expecting the first presidential assassination in our country's history; who had jurisdiction - the Metropolitan Police Force or the War Department and the Union army? I have already expressed my opinion on the competency of the police force.Confusion caused delays as did the immediate focus on finding Booth instead of pinning down other participants and events. I would suspect that this might have caused the loss of some evidence even (such as John Surratt's April 12 letter from Montreal). Years ago, there was a local legend that a stash of letters with "disturbing" information was found by later occupants of the house under a squeaky floorboard. The letters were burned because of their contents.

[RJNorton]

(09-20-2018 09:15 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I have yet to figure out whether or not he visited once or twice that day - once in the morning when he learned of the proposed trip to Surrattsville and again in the afternoon to bring the field glasses OR just in the afternoon with package in hand.

My curiosity has to do with the possible morning visit. When Weichmann left for work in the morning he did not know he was going to get the afternoon off. So, if Mary had already planned to go to Surrattsville the afternoon of the 14th, how would she have traveled there (not knowing at the time that Weichmann would arrive back early to the boardinghouse)?

[L Verge]

I don't think that Mrs. Surratt had advanced notice that she needed to go to the tavern. The Calvert letter was dated April 12, and I believe she received it sometime before 2 pm on the 14th. It was likely sheer luck that Weichmann took Stanton's invitation to take the afternoon off, which gave Mary the opportunity to act quickly regarding Calvert's demands. He had already sued her husband twice for debts owed since 1852, so Mary didn't need to mess around!

Also, if I remember correctly, Weichmann went to church after getting off work and before coming home. Doesn't sound like anything was pre-arranged travel-wise. The fact that Nothey wasn't waiting for them at the tavern also indicates that everything was spur of the moment.

[mikegriffith1]

I should also mention a point on which Weichmann was thoroughly refuted at the military trial: his claim that Dr. Mudd's "meeting" with John Surratt and Booth at the National Hotel occurred in mid-January. Weichmann said he knew the meeting took place in mid-January because he was certain that Congress had come back from its Christmas vacation by then and because the meeting happened after he received a letter dated January 6.

Mudd's attorney proceeded to refute Weichmann's testimony on this matter; he proved with multiple witnesses that Mudd was at or near his home for the entire month of January. Interestingly, when Weichmann wrote his autobiography, he admitted that the meeting occurred when Dr. Mudd said it did: on December 23, 1864.

[mikegriffith1]

To close the loop on the point that Reverdy Johnson remained actively involved with Mary Surratt's defense even though he rarely appeared in court after May 13:

On May 13, after Johnson had left for the day (and after he said he would not defend Mrs. Surratt if he believed she were guilty), Frederick Aiken, one of Johnson's subordinate lawyers, asked the court to delay John Lloyd's testimony until the following Monday, May 15, because Reverdy Johnson wanted to cross-examine him:

Quote:The Judge Advocate then called John M. Lloyd as a witness.

Mr. Aiken applied to the Commission to postpone the examination of John M. Lloyd until Monday next, when Mr. Johnson, the senior counsel for Mrs. Mary E. Surratt, one of the accused, would be present, he having left the court-room to-day; as the testimony of the witness now called would be of the gravest importance as affecting Mary E. Surratt. (The Conspiracy Trial for the Murder of the President, Ben Poore transcript, vol. 1, p. 114)

Nearly three weeks later, when Aiken was trying to get a document admitted into evidence, he noted that Reverdy Johnson had reviewed the document and had approved it for submission:

Quote:Mr. Aiken. Yes: we wish it to go on the record. I will state further to the Court, that the paper was not presented to the Court without first being submitted to the senior counsel for the defense, the Hon. Reverdy Johnson, and that he approved it, and thought it just, right, and proper. (vol. 2, p. 375)

And then there's the fact that Reverdy Johnson helped to write the team's closing argument, and that Johnson directed Aiken to try to get a writ of habeas corpus after the verdict was given.

So it is simply inaccurate to say that Johnson stopped defending Mary Surratt after he said he would not defend her if he believed she were guilty.

This is not to mention the fact that what Johnson was clearly saying was that he would not have agreed to take on her case if he believed she was guilty. The very fact that he took her case shows that he did not believe she was guilty.

[L Verge]

(10-07-2018 06:32 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  To close the loop on the point that Reverdy Johnson remained actively involved with Mary Surratt's defense even though he rarely appeared in court after May 13:

On May 13, after Johnson had left for the day (and after he said he would not defend Mrs. Surratt if he believed she were guilty), Frederick Aiken, one of Johnson's subordinate lawyers, asked the court to delay John Lloyd's testimony until the following Monday, May 15, because Reverdy Johnson wanted to cross-examine him:

Quote:The Judge Advocate then called John M. Lloyd as a witness.

Mr. Aiken applied to the Commission to postpone the examination of John M. Lloyd until Monday next, when Mr. Johnson, the senior counsel for Mrs. Mary E. Surratt, one of the accused, would be present, he having left the court-room to-day; as the testimony of the witness now called would be of the gravest importance as affecting Mary E. Surratt. (The Conspiracy Trial for the Murder of the President, Ben Poore transcript, vol. 1, p. 114)

Nearly three weeks later, when Aiken was trying to get a document admitted into evidence, he noted that Reverdy Johnson had reviewed the document and had approved it for submission:

Quote:Mr. Aiken. Yes: we wish it to go on the record. I will state further to the Court, that the paper was not presented to the Court without first being submitted to the senior counsel for the defense, the Hon. Reverdy Johnson, and that he approved it, and thought it just, right, and proper. (vol. 2, p. 375)

And then there's the fact that Reverdy Johnson helped to write the team's closing argument, and that Johnson directed Aiken to try to get a writ of habeas corpus after the verdict was given.

So it is simply inaccurate to say that Johnson stopped defending Mary Surratt after he said he would not defend her if he believed she were guilty.

This is not to mention the fact that what Johnson was clearly saying was that he would not have agreed to take on her case if he believed she was guilty. The very fact that he took her case shows that he did not believe she was guilty.

I believe that the word PERCEPTION applies here. Reverdy Johnson (and subsequently Frederick Aiken) stated that they took Mrs. Surratt's case because they thought that all citizens should have the right to lawful justice-- and Johnson had been against military tribunals in the first place and, I believe, had expressed his thoughts to his friend, A. Lincoln, who had given many sanctions for such courts during the war. Mrs. Surratt was also a Marylander as was Johnson - who had practiced law about ten miles from Surrattsville.

When Johnson failed to return to the courtroom, the PERCEPTION from the public was that he had deserted her and, thus, must have considered her guilty. They did not know of his behind-the-scenes advice (sparse though it be) to Aiken and Clampitt.

While Aiken may have asked for a delay in order for Johnson to return to question John Lloyd, I see no reference to such a thing occurring, at least according to the Pitman version of the trial. The prosecution had their chance with Lloyd, but I see no reference to either Lloyd or Johnson in the defense of Mrs. Surratt. Have I missed something?

Now, please return to the previous thread about identification of Booth's body...

[mikegriffith1]

Lately I’ve been reading one of the most fascinating and informative books I’ve read so far on the Lincoln assassination, namely, Thomas Bogar’s book Backstage at the Lincoln Assassination: The Untold Story of the Actors and Stagehands at Ford’s Theater (Washington, DC: Regnery History 2013).

Bogar’s research casts serious doubt on Louis Weichmann’s claim in his sworn statement that Mary Surratt met with Booth at her boarding house shortly before 2:30 PM and at some point after 9:00 PM on the day of the assassination.

Let us start with Weichmann's claim that Booth met with Mrs. Surratt at her boarding house at 2:30 PM. Bogar documents that Ford Theater employees James Maddox and William Ferguson saw Booth at around 2:45 “seated calmly at the prompter’s table, chatting quietly with Gifford, Spangler, and Spear” (p. 92).

Surratt’s boarding house was half a mile from Ford’s Theater. If Booth had ridden his horse at a trot (about 10 mph), it would have taken him right around three minutes to get to the theater. Then, add time for him to tie his horse outside the theater and to walk inside. Then, add time for him to find Gifford, Spangler, and Spear in the theater. Then, add time for the four of them to decide to sit down at the prompter’s table. Then, add time for the four of them to converse long enough that when Maddox and Ferguson noticed them, they were “seated calmly” and “chatting quietly” at the prompter’s table.

As for the alleged 9:00-9:15(?) PM meeting that Weichmann claimed he witnessed, Bogar documents that Booth was seen by numerous people hanging around or inside Ford’s Theater or at the Star Saloon next door from 7:45 PM until he fled on his horse at approximately 10:10 PM; during this time period, Booth was seen many times by numerous theater staff and actors and by people at the Star Saloon (pp. 101-115).

Between 7:45 and 8:00 PM, Booth was seen at the rear of the parquette section in the theater, “his arms resting on the railing, watching the audience” (p. 101). At around 9:10 PM, Ferguson saw Booth and Spangler standing in the alley behind the theater. Booth and Spangler then went to the Star Saloon, which was at least Booth’s third trip to the saloon in the previous seven hours (p. 106, pp. 92-94). At around 9:20 PM, theater employee John Debonay saw Booth at the door in the rear of the theater, where he was calling for Spangler to come hold his horse for the rest of the act (p. 106).

During this time, no one reported seeing Booth leave the vicinity of the theater and/or return to it. Nor did anyone report seeing his horse absent from the alley behind the theater, except for a brief exhibition at around 4:15 PM that Booth put on with his horse to show Spangler and Maddox and others how fast the horse was (pp. 95-96). During this exhibition, Booth merely rode up and down 10th Street and F Street right next to the theater.

[Tom Bogar]

Mike, I think it's commendable that you are exploring these issues in your "journey." I would caution, however, against anyone at the remove of 153 years drawing any definitive conclusions, especially regarding chronology. What I wrote, as all historians must do, is informed conjecture based on recalled testimony of contemporary participants. Time can easily shift one way or the other, and words can be misinterpreted. For instance, Gifford and Spangler were doubtless working, and Spear lounging, with Booth seated calmly at the prompter's table while chatting with them. But Gifford and Spangler could have been lying to cover for Booth, and Spear may have been half-drunk. The fact is, we weren't there, so we can never know with certitude. But for what it's worth, I have never considered Weichmann an entirely credible witness, as he had his own agenda and his own interests to protect.

[mikegriffith1]

(10-15-2018 09:01 AM)Tom Bogar Wrote:  Mike, I think it's commendable that you are exploring these issues in your "journey." I would caution, however, against anyone at the remove of 153 years drawing any definitive conclusions, especially regarding chronology. What I wrote, as all historians must do, is informed conjecture based on recalled testimony of contemporary participants. Time can easily shift one way or the other, and words can be misinterpreted. For instance, Gifford and Spangler were doubtless working, and Spear lounging, with Booth seated calmly at the prompter's table while chatting with them. But Gifford and Spangler could have been lying to cover for Booth, and Spear may have been half-drunk. The fact is, we weren't there, so we can never know with certitude. But for what it's worth, I have never considered Weichmann an entirely credible witness, as he had his own agenda and his own interests to protect.

I agree that Gifford and Spangler could have been lying to cover for Booth, but, as you know, other witnesses likewise put Booth at Ford's Theater at different points in the general timeframe under discussion (2:30 to 5:00 PM and 7:45 to 10:10 PM).

---

We should not be surprised that Weichmann told so many lies, given what we know about the extreme, illegal pressure that was applied to him. John T. Ford, owner of Ford’s Theater, made a written record of what he saw and heard while he was (unjustly and illegally) imprisoned at the Old Capitol Prison, and Ford and others witnessed (ear-witnessed) this pressure firsthand.

In early May, while in Old Capitol, Ford heard the notorious thug Lafayette Baker warn Jake Rittersbach, a Ford’s Theater stagehand and former Union soldier, that he would be imprisoned indefinitely if he did not say what Baker wanted him to say. On another occasion, Ford and his brother Harry, and Ford employee James Gifford heard Weichmann being subjected to similar pressure. On yet another occasion, Ford employees Gifford, Jimmie Maddox, and Lou Carland overheard a guard threaten Weichmann with death if he did not say more than what he had already said. I quote from Thomas Bogar’s book Backstage at the Lincoln Assassination:

Quote:One day that week John Ford overheard an egregious instance of “witness preparation” in the prison yard: [Lafayette] Baker going at Rittersbach, putting words in his mouth. Whereas Rittersbach had actually heard Ned Spangler that night [April 14] say, “Hush your mouth. You don’t know whether it’s Booth or not,” Baker now told him to add that Spangler had slapped him across the face and warned, “For God’s sake, shut up! And don’t say which way he went.” If Rittersbach would not so testify, Baker threatened, he would be thrown definitely into the general prison population at Old Capitol. This approach by Baker, Ford believed, would unnerve anyone, “and cause him to think he believed he heard what did not.” Even though Rittersbach was self-motivated to testify and required little prodding, he was hauled before Colonel Burnett on the eve of the trial for another conversation. No notes exist of its nature.

Ford, his brother Harry, and Gifford witnessed the same sort of pressure brought to bear within the prison on a terrified Louis Weichmann, a Booth associate who had boarded at Mrs. Surratt’s. Weichmann would in due course provide exceedingly incriminating testimony, which led to the conviction and execution of several of the conspirators. A day later, Maddox, Gifford, and Carland overheard an officer in Old Capitol tell Weichmann “if he didn’t swear to more than he had told, he would be hung.” (Weichmann shortly after the trial would confess to Carland that he had perjured himself to save his skin, and tell Gifford “I’d give a million dollars if I had had nothing to do with it.”) As John Ford recorded in his ever-lengthening jail house manifesto, “Another damnable feature in this prison is that if a prisoner will not or cannot give such information as may be demanded of him, he is ordered to his room or cell and handcuffed and tortured into a more compliant witness or informer.” (pp. 180-181)

[L Verge]

(10-15-2018 03:44 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(10-15-2018 09:01 AM)Tom Bogar Wrote:  Mike, I think it's commendable that you are exploring these issues in your "journey." I would caution, however, against anyone at the remove of 153 years drawing any definitive conclusions, especially regarding chronology. What I wrote, as all historians must do, is informed conjecture based on recalled testimony of contemporary participants. Time can easily shift one way or the other, and words can be misinterpreted. For instance, Gifford and Spangler were doubtless working, and Spear lounging, with Booth seated calmly at the prompter's table while chatting with them. But Gifford and Spangler could have been lying to cover for Booth, and Spear may have been half-drunk. The fact is, we weren't there, so we can never know with certitude. But for what it's worth, I have never considered Weichmann an entirely credible witness, as he had his own agenda and his own interests to protect.

I agree that Gifford and Spangler could have been lying to cover for Booth, but, as you know, other witnesses likewise put Booth at Ford's Theater at different points in the general timeframe under discussion (2:30 to 5:00 PM and 7:45 to 10:10 PM).

---

We should not be surprised that Weichmann told so many lies, given what we know about the extreme, illegal pressure that was applied to him. John T. Ford, owner of Ford’s Theater, made a written record of what he saw and heard while he was (unjustly and illegally) imprisoned at the Old Capitol Prison, and Ford and others witnessed (ear-witnessed) this pressure firsthand.

In early May, while in Old Capitol, Ford heard the notorious thug Lafayette Baker warn Jake Rittersbach, a Ford’s Theater stagehand and former Union soldier, that he would be imprisoned indefinitely if he did not say what Baker wanted him to say. On another occasion, Ford and his brother Harry, and Ford employee James Gifford heard Weichmann being subjected to similar pressure. On yet another occasion, Ford employees Gifford, Jimmie Maddox, and Lou Carland overheard a guard threaten Weichmann with death if he did not say more than what he had already said. I quote from Thomas Bogar’s book Backstage at the Lincoln Assassination:

Quote:One day that week John Ford overheard an egregious instance of “witness preparation” in the prison yard: [Lafayette] Baker going at Rittersbach, putting words in his mouth. Whereas Rittersbach had actually heard Ned Spangler that night [April 14] say, “Hush your mouth. You don’t know whether it’s Booth or not,” Baker now told him to add that Spangler had slapped him across the face and warned, “For God’s sake, shut up! And don’t say which way he went.” If Rittersbach would not so testify, Baker threatened, he would be thrown definitely into the general prison population at Old Capitol. This approach by Baker, Ford believed, would unnerve anyone, “and cause him to think he believed he heard what did not.” Even though Rittersbach was self-motivated to testify and required little prodding, he was hauled before Colonel Burnett on the eve of the trial for another conversation. No notes exist of its nature.

Ford, his brother Harry, and Gifford witnessed the same sort of pressure brought to bear within the prison on a terrified Louis Weichmann, a Booth associate who had boarded at Mrs. Surratt’s. Weichmann would in due course provide exceedingly incriminating testimony, which led to the conviction and execution of several of the conspirators. A day later, Maddox, Gifford, and Carland overheard an officer in Old Capitol tell Weichmann “if he didn’t swear to more than he had told, he would be hung.” (Weichmann shortly after the trial would confess to Carland that he had perjured himself to save his skin, and tell Gifford “I’d give a million dollars if I had had nothing to do with it.”) As John Ford recorded in his ever-lengthening jail house manifesto, “Another damnable feature in this prison is that if a prisoner will not or cannot give such information as may be demanded of him, he is ordered to his room or cell and handcuffed and tortured into a more compliant witness or informer.” (pp. 180-181)

Such interrogation techniques were routinely used for centuries in cases large and small and by a variety of ethnic and religious communities across the globe - some much more violent than those used on the Lincoln conspirators. Thank your lucky stars for Miranda Rights (which came in during my lifetime).

[Warren]

Just an aside - years ago I was researching a case in the lawbooks and the case next to it was a Texas criminal case from 1906 (I think). The verdict against the defendant was overturned on appeal because the defendant "had not been warned that any statements he made could be used against him". I was stunned. This was many years before Miranda. Miranda, of course, covered other rights as well.

[RJNorton]

(08-16-2018 03:12 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  that Booth was not shot in Garrett's barn

Mike, do you have an explanation for Booth's diary being found in the possession of the man caught and killed at Garrett's?

[L Verge]

(10-16-2018 01:36 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(08-16-2018 03:12 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  that Booth was not shot in Garrett's barn

Mike, do you have an explanation for Booth's diary being found in the possession of the man caught and killed at Garrett's?

And may I add to that question: How did the fake Booth acquire the cdv's of the actresses and Lucy Hale contained in that diary? And you still have not answered as to how Booth's engraved stickpin happened to be holding together a torn undershirt on the fake Booth. We could save a lot of time here if you would acknowledge documented evidence instead of side-stepping and continuing to theorize.

[Susan Higginbotham]

And why did the fake Booth not surrender?