And as I said, I agree and I read your post correctly. However, as I stated earlier, judging the evidence even today as back then...she was guilty.
The "evidence"? What "evidence"? The conflicting, dubious "testimony" given by two guys--David Lloyd and Louis Weichmann--who were suspects and then agreed to finger Surratt and the others in exchange for clemency? Adzerodt's unbelievable, nonsensical confession? That "evidence"?
Both Lloyd and Weichmann were threatened with death if they did not provide "more information." Lloyd's testimony may have been obtained by torture. A friend of Weichmann's, Lewis Carland, said that Weichmann provided his incriminating evidence under threat of death, and that he regretted it. From David DeWitt's book
The Judicial Murder of Mary Surratt:
The next is from the testimony of Lewis J. Carland, to whom Weichman confessed his remorse after the execution of Mrs. Surratt:
“He [Weichman] said it would have been very different with Mrs. Surratt if he had been let alone; that a statement had been prepared for him, that it was written out for him, and that he was threatened with prosecution as one of the conspirators if he did not swear to it. He said that a detective had been put into Carroll prison with him, and that this man had written out a statement which he said he had made in his sleep, and that he had to swear to that statement.”
Let us add another; it is so short and yet so suggestive. It is from the testimony of James J. Gifford, who was a witness for the prosecution on both trials.
“Q.—Do you know Mr. Weichman?
“A.—I have seen him.
“Q.—Were you in Carroll prison with him?
“A.—Yes, sir.
“Q.—Did he say in your presence that an officer of the government had told him that unless he testified to more than he had already stated they would hang him too?
“A.—I heard the officer tell him so.” (pp. 19-20)
If the military tribunal had such a strong case, why wouldn't they let Surratt testify in her own defense? They could have done so if they had wanted. With all the other norms and laws that the tribunal ignored, they could have easily allowed her to testify. It should be noted that by 1865 there was a strong movement in the country to change state laws so that defendants could testify in their own defense. Maine had already changed its law to this effect the year before, and many other states soon followed--in fact, several states changed their laws accordingly within five years of Surratt's trial.
Why didn't Mary Surratt flee or make any effort to hide? She certainly didn't act like someone who had just participated in the Crime of the Century.
And if Mary Surratt--as Kate Larson claims--somehow just "had" to know what Booth, her son, and the others were planning when they conversed in her boarding house, then Anna, her adult daughter who also lived in the house, surely "had" to know as well. Why wasn't Anna charged?
And I ask again: Why in the world would any genuine Confederate conspiracy target Lincoln, Johnson, and Seward? With Lincoln and Johnson dead, that would have elevated the President Pro Tempore of the Senate to the presidency by the constitutional order of succession that existed at the time time. The Senate President Pro Tempore when Lincoln was shot was the weak, pliable Lafayette Foster, a Republican who had given apocalyptic speeches against "the Slave Power" and who later voted for Andrew Johnson's removal. It boggles the mind to think that a Confederate conspiracy would have wanted to elevate Foster to the presidency, especially given the fact that this would have put the South-loathing, South-hating, South-bashing Benjamin Wade one step closer to the White House.
It is entirely possible that with Johnson dead, Foster could have been persuaded to retire or take a plumb appointment and be replaced as President Pro Tempore by Wade, which in turn would have made Wade Acting President of the United States. In fact, conveniently enough, in 1867, just as the groundwork was being established to begin the push for the House's impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Wade replaced Foster as President Pro Tempore of the Senate. If the Senate had voted to remove Johnson from office, Wade would have become Acting President. The fact that Wade would become Acting President with Johnson's removal was a major topic of discussion during Johnson's Senate trial.