The Lincoln Assassination and John Wilkes Booth: Was Booth a Double Agent?

You seem to cherrypick things quite a bit. You accept statements before and after. Weichmann statements before the investigation are valid. Statements made after the trial are valid. But any testimony made during the trial is tossed. It's hard to keep up.

Why is it hard to keep up? What don't you understand about doubting testimony given under threat of death? Do you understand that when Weichmann "testified," he was still under arrest and imprisoned, as was Lloyd, and that Stanton only released him and Lloyd from prison after Holt had confirmed that they had--and I quote--"faithfully given their testimony"? Do you not care that Weichmann told at least two people after the trial that he was told what to say and was threatened with death if he didn't say it? Is it just a coincidence that in all his hours of talking with the police, he didn't say a word against Mary Surratt, and that he only changed his tune after Baker's people began interrogating him after he was arrested and imprisoned? I mean, what is so hard to follow here?

All of this begs the question: Why were Stanton, Holt, Baker et al in such a burning rush to silence and execute these people and willing to fake documents, alter transcripts, threaten witnesses, suppress exculpatory evidence, bribe witnesses, and use a conman like Conover to help them do it? What were they covering up?
 
Last edited:
Why is it hard to keep up? What don't you understand about doubting testimony given under threat of death?
I think I'm understanding the process better than you do.

Do you understand that when Weichmann "testified," he was still under arrest and imprisoned, as was Lloyd, and that Stanton only released him and Lloyd from prison after Holt had confirmed that they had--and I quote--"faithfully given their testimony"?
Not really wanting to bring up current events but people 'flip' on their co-conspirators all the time to save their own bacon or receive immunity for their testimony. Separate the weak one from the herd, offer them a chance at salvation, and let them give the damning testimony to get the others. That's how prosecutors secure testimony from other criminals. Again, we're seeing this in action today! A lot of defendants aren't released until after their testimony has been given. This is nothing new.

Do you not care that Weichmann told at least two people after the trial that he was told what to say and was threatened with death if he didn't say it? Is it just a coincidence that in all his hours of talking with the police, he didn't say a word against Mary Surratt, and that he only changed his tune after Baker's people began interrogating him after he was arrested and imprisoned? I mean, what is so hard to follow here?
Do I care? No, not really. I have better things to worry about. But I do understand that Weichmann was a very unpopular fellow right after the trial. I'm sure he was putting out a lot of feelers to find friends, including getting letters published in New York papers. But as far as not saying anything about Mary Surratt (and I don't know if he did or didn't, again, been a while since I have read up on this stuff, but that neither proves or disproves anything. That's why they investigate. You make it sound as no one should have followed up on it. And what about Weichmann's deathbed 'confession' where he supposedly states his testimony was the honest truth? Why not speak out years later? Why not talk after Stanton's death? A lot of why-nots and not a lot of what-did.

All of this begs the question: Why were Stanton, Holt, Baker et al in such a burning rush to silence and execute these people and willing to fake documents, alter transcripts, threaten witnesses, suppress exculpatory evidence, bribe witnesses, and use a conman like Conover to help them do it? What were they covering up?
Nothing. Was it rushed? Perhaps. But they felt they had a solid case and presented it. Since the tribunal had no appeal process there was nothing to stop the execution date from being carried out. And beyond that I have no doubt the public wanted this to be put behind the nation as well.
 
Last edited:
I think I'm understanding the process better than you do.

Not really wanting to bring up current events but people 'flip' on their co-conspirators all the time to save their own bacon or receive immunity for their testimony. Separate the weak one from the herd, offer them a chance at salvation, and let them give the ****ing testimony to get the others. That's how prosecutors secure testimony from other criminals. Again, we're seeing this in action today! A lot of defendants aren't released until after their testimony has been given. This is nothing new.

Do I care? No, not really. I have better things to worry about. But I do understand that Weichmann was a very unpopular fellow right after the trial. I'm sure he was putting out a lot of feelers to find friends, including getting letters published in New York papers. But as far as not saying anything about Mary Surratt (and I don't know if he did or didn't, again, been a while since I have read up on this stuff, but that neither proves or disproves anything. That's why they investigate. You make it sound as no one should have followed up on it. And what about Weichmann's deathbed 'confession' where he supposedly states his testimony was the honest truth? Why not speak out years later? Why not talk after Stanton's death? A lot of why-nots and not a lot of what-did.

Nothing. Was it rushed? Perhaps. But they felt they had a solid case and presented it. Since the tribunal had no appeal process there was nothing to stop the execution date from being carried out. And beyond that I have no doubt the public wanted this to be put behind the nation as well.

None of your comparisons even halfway resembles the cases of Weichmann and Lloyd, not to mention that no modern court has ever been so rigged and openly biased as was Mary Surratt's military tribunal.

If you ever do decide to read the other side of the story, you might start with Dr. Robert Arnold's recent book The Conspiracy Between John Wilkes Booth and the Union Army to Assassinate Abraham Lincoln. Arnold is a former Navy surgeon and coroner who spent decades sifting through the Lincoln murder evidence buried at the National Archives. His discoveries are astounding. He proves from suppressed and unknown documents in the National Archives that the military trial was even more corrupt than was previously believed and that a number of commonly accepted "facts" about the Lincoln assassination did not happen but were invented by Stanton, Baker, Holt et al. Plus, using his knowledge and experience as a former surgeon and coroner, he sheds ground-breaking light on the medical evidence in the case, such as presenting evidence that the man in the Garrett barn could not have been shot the way the government said he was and that the weapon could not have been a pistol.
 
None of your comparisons even halfway resembles the cases of Weichmann and Lloyd, not to mention that no modern court has ever been so rigged and openly biased as was Mary Surratt's military tribunal.

If you ever do decide to read the other side of the story, you might start with Dr. Robert Arnold's recent book The Conspiracy Between John Wilkes Booth and the Union Army to Assassinate Abraham Lincoln. Arnold is a former Navy surgeon and coroner who spent decades sifting through the Lincoln murder evidence buried at the National Archives. His discoveries are astounding. He proves from suppressed and unknown documents in the National Archives that the military trial was even more corrupt than was previously believed and that a number of commonly accepted "facts" about the Lincoln assassination did not happen but were invented by Stanton, Baker, Holt et al. Plus, using his knowledge and experience as a former surgeon and coroner, he sheds ground-breaking light on the medical evidence in the case, such as presenting evidence that the man in the Garrett barn could not have been shot the way the government said he was and that the weapon could not have been a pistol.
Why does it seem all your sources come from the bargain bin at Conspiracies 'R Us? :happy:

Look, I've read some of the Lincoln conspiracy books and still have a couple in my library. They are entertaining and thought-provoking. My problem with them is at the end of the day they just don't hold up to scrutiny and frankly the common-sense smell test. I have countered pretty much everything you have tossed out. And it's been a very interesting discussion and frankly I've enjoyed the debate. But there hasn't been anything posted that makes me think Mary Surratt was not guilty or John Wilkes Booth worked for someone else to kill Lincoln.
 
From the time I began to study the Civil War, the traditional version of the Lincoln assassination never made sense to me. Why in the world would any genuine Confederate assassination conspiracy target Abraham Lincoln when it was well known that Lincoln wanted a lenient, conciliatory reconstruction? And why in the world would any Confederate in his right mind also try to kill William Seward, who supported lenient, conciliatory reconstruction and who had been an outspoken advocate of compromise before the war? Why would any genuine Confederate assassination conspiracy perform actions that would give the Radicals a golden excuse to impose a draconian reconstruction on the South? It has never made any sense to me.

As I learned more about the Civil War, other questions about the Lincoln assassination occurred to me. Wouldn't a genuine Confederate conspiracy try to kill Edwin Stanton first and foremost? Wouldn't any rational Confederate conspiracy target the leading Radical Republicans in Congress, such as Benjamin Wade, Henry Wilson, Charles Sumner, and Thaddeus Stevens, men who were known for their hatred of the South and for their desire to brutalize and subjugate the South? These men would have been the top targets in any genuine Confederate assassination conspiracy.

My first inkling that John Wilkes Booth was a double agent came in an article by Civil War scholar Clyde Wilson in which Wilson indicated that he suspected that Booth was a double agent. But Wilson said nothing else on the matter. When I read this, I thought, "What?! Well, that would explain a lot!"

Not long after I read Wilson's intriguing statement, I became aware of the fine scholarship of Otto Eisenschiml, a scientist and Civil War scholar who wrote in the early 1900s. I read Eisenschiml's book Why Was Lincoln Murdered? which makes a strong circumstantial case that the conspiracy that killed Lincoln was not a Confederate conspiracy but a Radical Republican conspiracy led by Edwin Stanton. Eisenschiml also raises questions about Booth's true allegiance and suggests that he was in fact a double agent for the Union. Eisenschiml followed up Why Was Lincoln Murdered? with In the Shadow of Lincoln’s Death in which, among other things, he expands on some points made in the first book.

Then, recently, I stumbled across two more books that present additional evidence that Booth was a double agent and that leading Radical Republicans were behind the assassination. The books are Theodore Roscoe’s Web of Conspiracy: The Complete Story of the Men Who Murdered President Lincoln and The Cosgrove Report: Being the Private Inquiry of a Pinkerton Detective into the Death of President Lincoln.

Roscoe was a noted author and scholar in the mid-1900s. Among other things, he was commissioned by the U.S. Navy to write two histories of submarine and destroyer warfare in World War II: United States Submarine Operations in World War II (1949) and United States Destroyer Operations in World War II (1953), Roscoe’s Web of Conspiracy was published in 1959. It is arguably the most scholarly book ever written that posits a Radical Republican conspiracy in the Lincoln assassination. He discusses numerous actions by Stanton that seem to defy innocent explanation and that point to a deliberate attempt to conceal facts and spread disinformation about the assassination.

The Cosgrove Report was edited by former CIA analyst George O’Toole. O’Toole edited a manuscript written by a private detective named Michael Croft, and Croft’s manuscript was based on a manuscript and other materials written and collected by Nicholas Cosgrove, a detective for the Pinkerton Detective Agency during and after the Civil War. The manuscript and materials were handed down to Croft by an attorney named Raymond Lawson, who was one of Cosgrove's grandchildren. O’Toole arranged for the book to be published in 1979 and was recently reprinted.

One thing that is so fascinating about the book is that Cosgrove made some claims that seemed unlikely, if not fantastic, at the time and that were only verified much later. Cosgrove also provided numerous small details that Croft was able to corroborate through extensive research.

Cosgrove’s claims and conclusions were so explosive that the manuscript was written as a historical novel. The novel contains much fiction, but it also contains a great deal of fact. Croft spent years researching Cosgrove’s manuscript and produced an annotated version with a detailed foreword and afterword. The novel is interesting, but the notes and the foreword and afterword are the heart and meat of the book, since they present facts to support the novel.

Croft presents the following facts:

* Booth’s sister said that her brother stated that the abolitionist John Brown was an “inspired” man and the “grandest character of this century.” Such a view of Brown was unheard of among genuine Confederates (it was also a distinctly minority view among Northerners).

* Booth’s sister also said that Booth told her that he could travel through Union lines because he received a pass signed by General Grant.

* Booth’s older brothers, Edwin and Junius, were associated with none other than Lafayette Baker, one of Stanton’s henchmen. Junius reportedly became good friends with Baker before the war.

Oh, yes, yes, yes, I know that “mainstream historians” have summarily dismissed Eisenschiml’s and Roscoe’s research, and they have scoffed at the idea that the Lincoln assassination conspiracy was anything but a Confederate conspiracy. I have read many of the “mainstream” reviews of the Eisenschiml and Roscoe books, and not one of them makes any substantive effort to address the evidence that Eisenschiml and Roscoe present; instead, they make a giant appeal to authority and stress that “no reputable historian” agrees with Eisenschiml and Roscoe. (Actually, Eisenschiml’s research team included a professional historian.)
Is it true that there were pages thorn from Booth's diary? Did Sec of War Stanton have possession of the diary? This is the same conspiracy that Booth was a agent of the Confederate secret service.Then there is the one of the whole Confederacy was a conspiracy among Southern politicians and plantation owners.
 
For the trial testimony and evaluation by assassination historians:
https://books.google.com/books?id=3BJv0EPr7ygC&dq=edward+steers+++otto+eisenschiml&source=gbs_navlinks_s

The Trial: The Assassination of President Lincoln and the Trial of the Conspirators
JJo72mXEyM6tTO5Urpxe4IOm19wbVkQ-08BC0L3Uhe-tkU75zKgbCe28nTliVcAoAJhFE9fTsS4Fhg0c6Yg4JoqUxpl7rlLZ.jpg


Contents
Preface
vii
Introduction Edward Steers Jr
xi
The Military Trial Thomas Reed Turner
xxi
General Conspiracy Edward Steers Jr
xxix
Testimony Relating to John Wilkes Booth and Circumstances Attending the Assassination Terry Alford
xxxviii
Edman Spangler Betty J Ownsbey
xlvii
Mary Elizabeth Surratt Laurie Verge
lii
John H Surratt Jr Joan L Chaconas
lx
Samuel Alexander Mudd Edward Steers Jr
lxxix
Samuel Arnold and Michael OLaughlen Percy E Martin
lxxxviii
Illustrations follow page
xcvi
General Order Number 100 Burrus Carnahan
xcvii
Military Commission Exhibits in the case of US vs DE Herold et al
ci
Lost Confession of George A Atzerodt
civ
Title Page to Original Edition
1
Contents to Original Edition
5
George Atzerodt Edward Steers Jr
lxvi
Lewis Thornton Powell alias Lewis Payne Betty Ownsbey
lxxii
Copyright
My copy arrived tonight. Looking forward to glancing through it.
 
Why does it seem all your sources come from the bargain bin at Conspiracies 'R Us? :happy:

Uh, umm, the federal government said Lincoln was killed by a conspiracy. Go read the charges that the prosecutors filed at the military tribunal. Go read what Stanton said about the assassination.

We have laws on our books against conspiracy because conspiracies happen and have happened throughout history. Hundreds of people are convicted of conspiracy each year in America.

Look, I've read some of the Lincoln conspiracy books and still have a couple in my library. They are entertaining and thought-provoking. My problem with them is at the end of the day they just don't hold up to scrutiny and frankly the common-sense smell test.

Yes, I know that's a standard talking point among those who cling to the traditional conspiracy theory. So you think that the military court's version passes the common-sense and smell test but that far more logical and documented versions do not. You do realize that the military court's evidence of Confederate government involvement was soon exposed as utterly bogus and fabricated and that for decades the vast majority of scholars who have studied the trial have acknowledged this, right? But when it comes to Mary Surratt, you're going to trust the same guys who used fabricated evidence to claim that Confederate leaders were involved. Ok, we'll agree to disagree.

As for your reference to "conspiracy books," again, the federal government is on record as officially concluding that Lincoln was killed by a vast conspiracy.

I have countered pretty much everything you have tossed out. And it's been a very interesting discussion and frankly I've enjoyed the debate. But there hasn't been anything posted that makes me think Mary Surratt was not guilty or John Wilkes Booth worked for someone else to kill Lincoln.

Perhaps I missed it, but you have barely touched the substance of any of my arguments. You have "countered" them by rejecting them, saying they don't make sense, saying that some other students and scholars agree with you, etc., etc., but you have not dealt with my arguments in any substantive way.

I don't know what "conspiracy books" you have read, but your responses in this thread have not touched any of the evidence that the best "conspiracy books" present.
 
Last edited:
Uh, umm, the federal government said Lincoln was killed by a conspiracy. Go read the charges that the prosecutors filed at the military tribunal. Go read what Stanton said about the assassination.

We have laws on our books against conspiracy because conspiracies happen and have happened throughout history. Hundreds of people are convicted of conspiracy each year in America.
Mike, you're really stretching things here. All that is needed for a conspiracy to exist is two people who plan out a crime. That's it. A conspiracy does not need an organized structure or entity for it to exist. You seem to be stuck on the large-scale idea of a conspiracy ala 9/11 or the JFK assassination. Conspiracy was a correct charge in this crime.

Yes, I know that's a standard talking point among those who cling to the traditional conspiracy theory. So you think that the military court's version passes the common-sense and smell test but that far more logical and documented versions do not.
That is correct.

You do realize that the military court's evidence of Confederate government involvement was soon exposed as utterly bogus and fabricated and that for decades the vast majority of scholars who have studied the trial have acknowledged this, right? But when it comes to Mary Surratt, you're going to trust the same guys who used fabricated evidence to claim that Confederate leaders were involved. Ok, we'll agree to disagree.

As for your reference to "conspiracy books," again, the federal government is on record as officially concluding that Lincoln was killed by a vast conspiracy.
Sure, they whiffed on that aspect. Doesn't change the fact that the rest of the evidence was what actually convicted the conspirators. It's really much to do about nothing. It literally happens all the time. Prosecutors put forth certain aspects of a case and those are judged. Some are conclusive, some are not. This is why it is extremely common for a defendant to be convicted of certain crimes and found not guilty of others. Because the prosecution failed to make the other crimes stick so they are rejected. It's not that complicated to realize it's not an all-or-nothing situation.

Perhaps I missed it, but you have barely touched the substance of any of my arguments. You have "countered" them by rejecting them, saying they don't make sense, saying that some other students and scholars agree with you, etc., etc., but you have not dealt with my arguments in any substantive way.
I disagree. I have responded almost point-by-point of what you have posted. I'll let the readership judge whether or not my arguments are valid. Case in point...Mary Surratt's apparent near-sightedness. Great. I'll concede maybe she was nearsighted. Doesn't change the fact she knew many of the conspirators and they met at her boarding house and reported met with Booth himself privately on at least two different occasions. Or the testimony concerning the field glasses or firearms. The defense (properly) brought up this mitigating factor. It was not a strong enough argument to overcome the bulk of the testimony. Just because the defense brings it up doesn't mean it's completely accurate or true. Bringing up mitigating factors is their job. They did. And it failed as a defense.

I don't know what "conspiracy books" you have read, but your responses in this thread have not touched any of the evidence that the best "conspiracy books" present.
Well there are several. Personally I have a book by Hanchett and one by David Balsiger and Charles Sellier (I read this one in junior high). Again, very entertaining, but doesn't hold up as history.
 
Mike, you're really stretching things here. All that is needed for a conspiracy to exist is two people who plan out a crime. That's it. A conspiracy does not need an organized structure or entity for it to exist. You seem to be stuck on the large-scale idea of a conspiracy ala 9/11 or the JFK assassination. Conspiracy was a correct charge in this crime.

Only a few fringe people believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. The JFK assassination is a very different matter. The last official government investigation into JFK's death (the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s) concluded that there was a "probable conspiracy" involved in JFK's death, that Oswald was not the only shooter, and that someone was impersonating Oswald in Mexico City. There are hundreds of scholars in a wide range of relevant fields who agree with that finding.

Sure, they whiffed on that aspect. Doesn't change the fact that the rest of the evidence was what actually convicted the conspirators. It's really much to do about nothing. It literally happens all the time. Prosecutors put forth certain aspects of a case and those are judged. Some are conclusive, some are not. This is why it is extremely common for a defendant to be convicted of certain crimes and found not guilty of others. Because the prosecution failed to make the other crimes stick so they are rejected. It's not that complicated to realize it's not an all-or-nothing situation.

This is a surreal argument. You talk as though the military trial was a real trial where the judges were making an honest effort to weigh evidence and determine guilt. This tells me that your reading on this issue has been very limited. The trial was a formality. The military tribunal was assembled to convict the defendants. The only issue was the degree of punishment to impose on each person.

I disagree. I have responded almost point-by-point of what you have posted.

You responded but you did not substantively address the evidence I cited. Merely pointing out that the military judges disagreed and that some scholars think they were right does nothing to address the evidence I presented.

I'll let the readership judge whether or not my arguments are valid. Case in point...Mary Surratt's apparent near-sightedness. Great. I'll concede maybe she was nearsighted. Doesn't change the fact she knew many of the conspirators and they met at her boarding house and reported met with Booth himself privately on at least two different occasions.

This is a perfect example of your non-responsive responses. The whole case against her rested mainly on three charges: (1) that she lied when she said she did not recognize Lewis Payne; (2) that she told Lloyd about the "shooting irons" and "field glasses" and gave her a package from Booth that she knew contained an item that he would use in his escape (the field glasses); and (3) that she must have known about the plot because sometimes some of the conspirators met in her house. You have not substantively addressed the points that the defense and numerous scholars have made to challenge these charges.

"She knew many of the conspirators and they met at her boarding house"?! Dozens of people "knew the conspirators," and they did not just meet at her house but also at the Herndon House and at several other locations. And as for Mary Surratt's house being the "nest," it's odd, then, that only Paine came back to the house after the murder, and he didn't come until two days after the murder. It is also very odd that Mary made no effort to flee in the two days between the time when the local police came to her house hours after the assassination looking for John and the time when the military police showed up to arrest or detain everyone in her boarding house.

Or the testimony concerning the field glasses or firearms. The defense (properly) brought up this mitigating factor. It was not a strong enough argument to overcome the bulk of the testimony.

WHAT "bulk of the testimony"?! What are you talking about? The ONLY person who claimed that she said anything about "shooting irons" and "field glasses" was the drunk Lloyd! No one else who was there, including Weichmann, heard him say anything to Mary about "shooting irons" or "field glasses." (Weichmann's pattern was never to lie if there were other people who heard the same conversation who were still around to contradict him.) One of the Surrattsville witnesses pointed out that Lloyd didn't even show up until Mary was just about to leave! The defense pointed all this out, but the judges simply ignored it and took Lloyd's word on the matter against everyone else's.

And I again point out that both Lloyd and Weichmann later told several people that they were threatened with death if they did not say what the prosecutors wanted them to say.

Just because the defense brings it up doesn't mean it's completely accurate or true. Bringing up mitigating factors is their job. They did. And it failed as a defense.

Ok, this, too, tells me that your reading on the case has been rather limited. The defense did not just bring up "mitigating factors": they brought up raw contradictions in Lloyd's and Weichmann's stories, called a slew of witnesses who contradicted Lloyd and Weichmann on key points, presented evidence that Mary didn't recognize Payne because she was near-sighted and because Payne was dressed very differently than she'd ever seen him dressed before (they also noted that other people in the boarding house did not recognize him that night either), etc., etc. How many times did Weichmann have to change his story about the fabled "horse ride"? But the judges were not interested in facts or reason.

And this is not to even mention the fact that later research found evidence that Lewis Powell and Lewis Payne (actually Louis Paine) were two different people, that Powell was the one who rode the horse that was found north of the city nearly dead from exhaustion, that Powell was never caught, and that Paine--who was clearly mentally impaired--took the blame for Powell and pretended to be Powell to enable Powell to escape. The testimony and accounts of several witnesses indicate that Powell and Paine resembled each other in appearance but were very different in personality and mental capacity. Powell occasionally used the alias "Lewis Payne." Crucially, during the time period when Weichmann said that Louis Paine was visiting Mary Surratt's house and meeting with other conspirators in Washington, he was actually living at the boarding house of Mrs. Mary Branson in Baltimore, and her daughter affirmed that he was *never* absent from the immediate area during that time. This crucial fact was suppressed by the prosecutors at the trial, partly by making several interrogation records and reports about the Bransons disappear and by threatening the Bransons.

Well there are several. Personally I have a book by Hanchett and one by David Balsiger and Charles Sellier (I read this one in junior high). Again, very entertaining, but doesn't hold up as history.

Yeah, I figured you were relying on Hanchett's hatchet-job denials. I suspect you won't bother, but you really should read, for example, Hanchett's chapter on Eisenschiml's research, and then actually go read Eisenschiml's research. Eisenschiml was twice the scholar and intellect that Hanchett is.

And, although you've already dismissed Dr. Robert Arnold's ground-breaking 2016 book as "Conspiracies R Us," you really should read his book and keep in mind that he's a retired Navy surgeon and a former coroner. Dr. Arnold's surgical skills were so highly recognized in the Navy that he was assigned to train new Navy surgeons. He retired as a Navy captain--that's one rank below admiral. So we're not talking about some fringe guy in his basement who reads a few books and starts writing his own. Dr. Arnold also spent years studying all the Lincoln assassination materials that were finally released to the National Archives in the early 20th century. He proves that numerous key documents were never entered into evidence at the trial and were never made public, and that those documents show that several events related to the assassination that are still repeated in many history books did not happen but were invented. Furthermore, as a former surgeon and coroner, Dr. Arnold sheds important new light on the medical evidence in the case, such as the fact that there's no way that the man in the barn was shot the way the government said he was.
 
Last edited:
This is a surreal argument. You talk as though the military trial was a real trial where the judges were making an honest effort to weigh evidence and determine guilt. This tells me that your reading on this issue has been very limited. The trial was a formality. The military tribunal was assembled to convict the defendants. The only issue was the degree of punishment to impose on each person.
Because it was a real trial whether or not you accept it. I would think if it was a major shame as you say then all of the defendants would have swung, not just four.

You responded but you did not substantively address the evidence I cited. Merely pointing out that the military judges disagreed and that some scholars think they were right does nothing to address the evidence I presented.
Because you make some ludicrous claims. Again, just because the defense presents something does not make it true.

This is a perfect example of your non-responsive responses. The whole case against her rested mainly on three charges: (1) that she lied when she said she did not recognize Lewis Payne; (2) that she told Lloyd about the "shooting irons" and "field glasses" and gave her a package from Booth that she knew contained an item that he would use in his escape (the field glasses); and (3) that she must have known about the plot because sometimes some of the conspirators met in her house. You have not substantively addressed the points that the defense and numerous scholars have made to challenge these charges.
Whether or not Lloyd was drop-down drunk is highly debatable. Some witnesses say he may have been drinking but was sober enough to drive the carriage without wrecking it. Even Atzerodt had confirmed parts of Lloyd's testimony about Mary knowing about the firearms. Factor in the fact the group met at her place, she delivered firearms to be used in the commission of the crime and her private meetings with Booth...yeah, she knew.

"She knew many of the conspirators and they met at her boarding house"?! Dozens of people "knew the conspirators," and they did not just meet at her house but also at the Herndon House and at several other locations. And as for Mary Surratt's house being the "nest," it's odd, then, that only Paine came back to the house after the murder, and he didn't come until two days after the murder. It is also very odd that Mary made no effort to flee in the two days between the time when the local police came to her house hours after the assassination looking for John and the time when the military police showed up to arrest or detain everyone in her boarding house.
Why odd? Herold was with Booth. Atzeroldt went to Maryland. Mudd was at home (obviously). Lloyd went back to the tavern. Not sure why any of that is a surprise.

WHAT "bulk of the testimony"?! What are you talking about? The ONLY person who claimed that she said anything about "shooting irons" and "field glasses" was the drunk Lloyd! No one else who was there, including Weichmann, heard him say anything to Mary about "shooting irons" or "field glasses." (Weichmann's pattern was never to lie if there were other people who heard the same conversation who were still around to contradict him.) One of the Surrattsville witnesses pointed out that Lloyd didn't even show up until Mary was just about to leave! The defense pointed all this out, but the judges simply ignored it and took Lloyd's word on the matter against everyone else's.

And I again point out that both Lloyd and Weichmann later told several people that they were threatened with death if they did not say what the prosecutors wanted them to say.
Again, the amount Lloyd drank and his status is disputed.

Ok, this, too, tells me that your reading on the case has been rather limited. The defense did not just bring up "mitigating factors": they brought up raw contradictions in Lloyd's and Weichmann's stories, called a slew of witnesses who contradicted Lloyd and Weichmann on key points, presented evidence that Mary didn't recognize Payne because she was near-sighted and because Payne was dressed very differently than she'd ever seen him dressed before (they also noted that other people in the boarding house did not recognize him that night either), etc., etc. How many times did Weichmann have to change his story about the fabled "horse ride"? But the judges were not interested in facts or reason.

And this is not to even mention the fact that later research found evidence that Lewis Powell and Lewis Payne (actually Louis Paine) were two different people, that Powell was the one who rode the horse that was found north of the city nearly dead from exhaustion, that Powell was never caught, and that Paine--who was clearly mentally impaired--took the blame for Powell and pretended to be Powell to enable Powell to escape. The testimony and accounts of several witnesses indicate that Powell and Paine resembled each other in appearance but were very different in personality and mental capacity. Powell occasionally used the alias "Lewis Payne." Crucially, during the time period when Weichmann said that Louis Paine was visiting Mary Surratt's house and meeting with other conspirators in Washington, he was actually living at the boarding house of Mrs. Mary Branson in Baltimore, and her daughter affirmed that he was *never* absent from the immediate area during that time. This crucial fact was suppressed by the prosecutors at the trial, partly by making several interrogation records and reports about the Bransons disappear and by threatening the Bransons.
And this tells me you only read those who believe Mary was innocent, as based on the titles of the sources you have posted about it.

Yeah, I figured you were relying on Hanchett's hatchet-job denials. I suspect you won't bother, but you really should read, for example, Hanchett's chapter on Eisenschiml's research, and then actually go read Eisenschiml's research. Eisenschiml was twice the scholar and intellect that Hanchett is.

And, although you've already dismissed Dr. Robert Arnold's ground-breaking 2016 book as "Conspiracies R Us," you really should read his book and keep in mind that he's a retired Navy surgeon and a former coroner. Dr. Arnold's surgical skills were so highly recognized in the Navy that he was assigned to train new Navy surgeons. He retired as a Navy captain--that's one rank below admiral. So we're not talking about some fringe guy in his basement who reads a few books and starts writing his own. Dr. Arnold also spent years studying all the Lincoln assassination materials that were finally released to the National Archives in the early 20th century. He proves that numerous key documents were never entered into evidence at the trial and were never made public, and that those documents show that several events related to the assassination that are still repeated in many history books did not happen but were invented. Furthermore, as a former surgeon and coroner, Dr. Arnold sheds important new light on the medical evidence in the case, such as the fact that there's no way that the man in the barn was shot the way the government said he was.
So which hatchet-job author would you recommend? And just because the dude is a good surgeon has little to do with interpreting history. But, if I get a chance I'm not opposed to reading his book.
 
Sure, they whiffed on that aspect [claiming that Confederate leaders were involved in the plot]. Doesn't change the fact that the rest of the evidence was what actually convicted the conspirators. It's really much to do about nothing.

Did you really just say that it's "much to do about nothing" that that the military prosecutors used forged documents, suppressed exculpatory evidence, called up bribed witnesses, threatened witnesses, and employed the services of the conman Conover to support their claim that Confederate leaders were behind Lincoln's death? Did you really just say that this illegal, immoral conduct by the prosecution "doesn't change the fact" that the rest of "the evidence" was what "convicted the conspirators"?

Most people would say that we should not believe a word that comes from prosecutors who would use such illegal, immoral methods. Most people would say that if those prosecutors would commit crimes to make one part of their case, then there is every reason to strongly doubt the validity of the rest of their case.

A few points:

* In the John Surratt trial, Lloyd admitted that he was drunk when he encountered Mary Surratt in Surrattsville on April 14, and that he had a drinking problem (Trial of John Surratt, Vol. 1, pp. 291-294). Said Lloyd,

Q. How much did you drink after the court adjourned? [Lloyd had attended a trial in Marlboro before going to Surrattsville that day]
A. I drank enough to make me drunk.
Q. Were you very drunk ?
A. I was so drunk that when I lay down I felt sick. . . .
Q. How long after Mrs. Surratt went away did you lie down?
A. I lay down before she left. I was lying down on the lounge when Mrs. Surratt came in and asked me to fix the buggy.
Q. Did not you take something to drink after she went away that night?
A. I have no doubt I did.
Q. Don't you recollect it?
A. I am not positive about it. I may have done so. I was drinking very freely.
Q. When you get drunk do you just lie down and get sober, or do you keep up the spreeing?
A. I sometimes keep it up several days.
Q. Had not you fallen into a bad habit of getting druuk before that?
A. From the time I took that place, and often previous to that, I was in the habit of taking a good deal of liquor. (p. 293)​

So, no, there is no "dispute" about whether or not Lloyd was drunk when he encountered Mary Surratt on April 14. Two years later, at Mary's son's trial, he was willing to admit it.

* Lloyd also admitted at the John Surratt trial that he had been drinking on April 11 when he saw Mrs. Surratt in Uniontown:

Q. Had you been drinking when you met Mrs. Suratt at Uniontown?
A. I had taken, I reckon, probably two or three drinks. (p. 295)​

So he had had "two or three drinks" by the time he encountered Mary Surratt in Uniontown on April 11.

* Under cross-examination in the military trial, Lloyd stated that was not absolutely positive that Mary Surratt had mentioned "shooting irons" to him on April 11. In the John Surratt trial, he inched a bit closer to saying he simply was not certain about it at all. We can see a man who was trying to signal that his story was false and that he was only telling it because he had been threatened with death. At the John Surratt trial, he admitted that he had been threatened before he gave his statement and testimony. He had said the same thing to at least two people two years earlier.

* Even in the military trial, Weichmann was repeatedly caught in contradictions and in making statements that credible witnesses contradicted. As just one example, Weichmann stated that when he went to Booth's room on April 2, supposedly to deliver a message from Mary Surratt, John McCullough (an actor) was in the room with Booth. But it turned out that McCullough was not even in Washington that day, and when McCullough was asked if he had ever met Weichmann, he said he had not.

Similarly, Weichmann had to keep changing his story about when the fabled "horse ride" occurred. After all was said and done, he had given five dates for the alleged event. If the prosecution had shown the defense Paine's Oath of Allegiance and/or had entered it into evidence, as they were legally required to do, the defense could have severely impeached Weichmann and proved that the "horse ride" story was a fabrication. If the defense had known about Paine's Oath of Allegiance, they could have also impeached Weichmann's story about the dates of Paine's visit to Washington in March:

Now the date the prosecutors finally selected for the "horse ride" was March 16. This reconciled pretty well with other important dates they had to take into consideration, and it would do for the history books if they could keep Paine's Oath of Allegiance out of court. Fortunately (from their point of view) they were able to do so. Paine's documented whereabouts in the Baltimore jail on March 12, 13, and 14 would have wrecked the timetable they had worked out for Weichmann's final statement on the dates of Paine's visit and the "horse ride". . . .

Further, it is significant that the other defendants at the trial whose participation in the "horse ride" was intimated evidently had no knowledge of the affair whatever. Both Arnold and Atzerodt, for example, were willing to talk freely about Booth's plan to kidnap the President, and both admitted they had been members of the group. It would have done neither of them the least damage to tell about the "horse ride"--Arnold in his published article after his release or Atzerodt in his "confession" to Rev. Butler before the execution--if there had been such an affair. They just knew nothing about it. (Vaughan Shelton, Mask for Treason: The Lincoln Murder Trial, Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1965, pp. 156-157, original emphasis)​

* I think the defense made a good point about Mrs. Surratt's delivery of the field glasses on April 14 in pointing out that, even assuming she knew the package contained field glasses, she would have had no reason to be suspicious about delivering field glasses to someone, and that the prosecution had not produced any evidence that Mary Surratt had had long private conversations with Booth:

If any part of Lloyd's statements is true, and Mrs. Surratt did verily bear to his or Mrs. Offutt's hands the field-glass, enveloped in paper, by the evidence itself, we may believe she knew not the nature of the contents of the package; and, had she known, what evil could she, or any other, have attached to a commission of so common a nature? No evidence of individual or personal intimacy with Booth has been adduced against Mrs. Surratt; no long and apparently confidential interviews; no indications of a private comprehension mutual between them; only the natural, and not frequent, custom on the part of Booth--as any other associate of her son might and doubtless did do--of inquiring through the mother, whom he would request to see, of the son who, he would learn, was absent from home.​
 
Last edited:
Allow me to give you some idea of how William Hanchett “refutes” conspiracy theories he does not like in his book The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies. Naturally, Hanchett had no choice but to spend a lot of pages dealing with the explosive notes that Dr. Ray Neff of Indiana State University discovered in the early 1960s, one of which was signed “Lafayette Baker” and the other of which was signed “L.C.B” (Baker’s initials). The two Baker notes were written in code and the signatures were not visible until a chemical was applied to them. Neff hired a code expert to decipher them and the translation was dramatic, the main points of which are as follows:

Baker admitted that Stanton and other Radicals had been behind Lincoln’s assassination. Baker admitted that he, too, had been involved in the plot. Baker wrote that he feared for his life, and he implied that Booth had been working for the Radicals.

The two Baker notes were found written on the pages of volume 2 of the 1864 edition of Colburn’s United Service Magazine, a British magazine on U.S. military affairs. An inventory of Baker's possessions showed that he owned volumes of Colburn's U.S. Magazine for the years 1860 to 1865.

Impressive credence was further established for the Baker notes by the discovery of the transcript of a two-day Philadelphia probate court hearing in 1872 on an addendum (codicil) to Baker’s will. The probate court transcript included a witness who reported seeing Baker writing notes in code in “an English military journal.” Colburn’s United Service Magazine was published in England. Two of the witnesses at the hearing said Baker feared for his life. Baker’s doctor, Dr. William Richards, under questioning from the attorney for the heir named in the codicil, admitted that Baker’s symptoms closely resembled those of arsenic poisoning. Modern chemical testing has confirmed that Baker was in fact poisoned.

So how does Hanchett deal with all of this independent and mutually corroborating evidence? First, he briefly suggests that it was all fabricated, although he does not offer a theory as to how this was done (probably because he could not concoct a plausible theory given what we know about the years that Dr. Neff and his team spent researching the Philadelphia municipal archives to find the probate court transcript).

But Hanchett’s main argument is that “professional historians” have almost universally rejected the documents as unimportant or spurious because of their distrust of Baker and because of their rejection of the “revisionist interpretation” that Lincoln and the Radical Republicans were drastically at odds over Reconstruction (pp. 217-219)! Hanchett cites “professional historians” William Beringer, T. Harry Williams, and Mark Neely. According to Hanchett, by the time of Lincoln’s death, Lincoln and the Radicals were not very far apart on reconstruction terms!

This nonsensical howler is a perfect example of the often bogus, politically driven nature of “modern Civil War scholarship.” It is also an example of why so many serious students of history have come to distrust most “Civil War historians.”

Are these “historians” talking about the same Radicals who gathered in Washington just hours after Lincoln’s death and who agreed that Lincoln’s murder was a “godsend to the country”? Let me quote what Rep. George Julian, a leading Radical in the House, said about the meeting:

I spent most of the afternoon in a political caucus, held for the purpose of considering the necessity for a new Cabinet and a line of policy less conciliatory than that of Mr. Lincoln; and while everybody was shocked at his murder, the feeling was nearly universal that the accession of Johnson to the Presidency would prove a godsend to the country. Aside from Mr. Lincoln's known policy of tenderness to the Rebels, which now so jarred upon the feelings of the hour, his well-known views on the subject of reconstruction were as distasteful as possible to radical Republicans. In his last public utterance, only three days before his death, he had declared his adherence to the plan of reconstruction announced by him in December, 1863, which in the following year so stirred the ire of Wade and Winter Davis as an attempt of the Executive to usurp the powers of Congress. (Political Recollections 1840-1872, Chicago: Jansen, McClurg & Company, 1884, pp. 255-256)​

Historian Claude Bowers, who later served as President Roosevelt’s ambassador to Spain, discussed this meeting and how it was reported in the New York Tribune at the time:

That afternoon, within eight hours of Lincoln's death, a caucus of the Radicals was conferring on plans to rid the Government of the Lincoln influence. One of the participants, “who liked the radical tone,” was "intolerably disgusted" with the "profanity and obscenity.” There, among others, sat Ben Wade, Zack Chandler, and Wilkeson, correspondent of the New York Tribune, who proposed to put Greeley “on the war path.” In the discussion as reported, “the hostility for Lincoln's policy of conciliation and contempt for his weakness" was “undisguised,” and “the universal sentiment among radical men” was that *his death is a Godsend to our cause.” Moving with revolutionary celerity, these practical men had agreed to urge on Johnson the reconstruction of his Cabinet “to get rid of the last vestige of Lincolnism,” and Ben Butler was chosen for Secretary of State! (The Tragic Era: The Revolution After Lincoln, Cambridge, MA: The Riverside Press, 1920, p. 6)​

Are these “historians” talking about the same Radicals who published the Wade-Davis Manifesto in August 1864 after Lincoln vetoed the Wade-Davis reconstruction bill? Bowers on the Wade-Davis Manifesto:

It was this very policy [Lincoln's policy] of conciliation that so easily reconciled the party leaders in Washington to Lincoln's death. They had launched their fight against it long before; had sought to prevent his nomination in 1864; and it was just a little while before that the Wade-Davis Manifesto had shaken and shocked the nation with its brutal denunciation of Lincoln's reconstruction plan. At the moment of his death there was no lonelier man in public life than Lincoln.

This Manifesto was an accurate expression of the spirit of the congressional leadership of his party. It referred contemptuously to "the dictation of his political ambition"; denounced his action on the Wade-Davis reconstruction plan as "a stupid outrage on the legislative authority of the people"; warned that Lincoln had "presumed on the forbearance which the supporters of his Administration had so long practiced"; and demanded that he "confine himself to his executive duties." (The Tragic Era, pp. 4-5)​

Are these “historians” talking about the same Radicals who excoriated Andrew Johnson for repeatedly vetoing their Reconstruction bills and for essentially following Lincoln’s version of Reconstruction?

Are these “historians” talking about the same Radicals who became so infuriated with Johnson for essentially following Lincoln’s reconstruction terms that they implied he had been complicit in Lincoln’s death?

Are these “historians” talking about the same Radicals who became so irate at Johnson over his efforts to soften the effects of Radical Reconstruction by removing Stanton and by appointing non-Radical generals in the South that they impeached him and almost succeeded in removing him from office?

Hanchett quotes one of these “historians” as saying that the Radicals could have much more easily overcome Lincoln’s opposition by overriding his vetoes! Oh really?! How long did it take the Radicals to finally override Johnson’s vetoes of Radical Reconstruction? Nearly two years. They could not make their version of Reconstruction the law of the land until 1867. So how long would it have taken the Radicals to override Lincoln’s vetoes? Lincoln was a far shrewder and more popular politician than Johnson was, and the Radicals knew it.

I will give Hanchett credit for one thing regarding the Baker notes: He does not make a big deal over the fact that Baker erred on the date of Lincoln’s order concerning the Virginia legislature in his second note, an error that Hanchett concedes is “easily attributable to fallible memory.” Baker was off by a few days, which is not bad given that Baker was apparently wring from memory without bothering to look it up.
 
Last edited:
Did you really just say that it's "much to do about nothing" that that the military prosecutors used forged documents, suppressed exculpatory evidence, called up bribed witnesses, threatened witnesses, and employed the services of the conman Conover to support their claim that Confederate leaders were behind Lincoln's death? Did you really just say that this illegal, immoral conduct by the prosecution "doesn't change the fact" that the rest of "the evidence" was what "convicted the conspirators"?

Most people would say that we should not believe a word that comes from prosecutors who would use such illegal, immoral methods. Most people would say that if those prosecutors would commit crimes to make one part of their case, then there is every reason to strongly doubt the validity of the rest of their case.
The government tried to make the case and it fell apart with Conover being outed as a fraud. So they moved on.

And I do find it odd that you basically declare the government's case illegal but you want to accept only bits and pieces of other testimony. Not everything Conover testified to was fabricated. Just like the other testimony regarding the other defendants. I have read Lloyd and Weichmann's testimony. Pretty detailed for a drunk and liar, eh? And it appears in testimony that while Lloyd did drink it seems by most he wasn't drunk until after Surratt visited. Just because he was drinking or drunk does not mean his entire testimony is for nothing. Not everyone blacks out or can't remember when they are drunk.

But in any case...how did he know to have them ready to be picked up? Just intuition? Little bird told him?
What about Atzeroldt's statement about Booth telling him Mrs. Surratt was delivering the guns?
As far as the cross-examination, the only thing I found by Lloyd was he couldn't recall what Surratt has first asked him and she was acting coy about it as to not bring attention to others. And even Jenkins said she was at Lloyd's and if she was trying to keep things concealed, she wouldn't have shouted it out.
As far as private conversations with Booth, it is in the testimony she often spoke with him out of sound of others and those conversations were brief.

I have not read much of anything regarding John Surratt's trial. So I cannot really comment on it other than from what I have read much of the testimony was similar.
 
The government tried to make the case and it fell apart with Conover being outed as a fraud. So they moved on.

Oh, ok. And I guess you're okay with the fact that the prosecutors used bribed and coerced witnesses and employed the services of a conman? And, uh, what do you think would have happened if Conover had not been outed?

And I do find it odd that you basically declare the government's case illegal but you want to accept only bits and pieces of other testimony. Not everything Conover testified to was fabricated. Just like the other testimony regarding the other defendants. I have read Lloyd and Weichmann's testimony. Pretty detailed for a drunk and liar, eh?

Oh my goodness, are you serious? Ever heard of witnesses being coached on what to say? But, sometimes coached witnesses mess up when they have to provide a large amount of false testimony. They get confused. They forget. And, if they're lying against their will, they sometimes try to plant clues in their statements that they're lying, or they try to soften the impact of their lies.

And it appears in testimony that while Lloyd did drink it seems by most he wasn't drunk until after Surratt visited. Just because he was drinking or drunk does not mean his entire testimony is for nothing. Not everyone blacks out or can't remember when they are drunk.

Wrong. Go back and read his testimony: As I proved in my reply, he was drunk before he saw Mary Surratt, and then he drank again after she left. And Lloyd specified that his drinking did in fact hamper his memory.

But in any case...how did he know to have them ready to be picked up? Just intuition? Little bird told him?

Uh, because one of the actual conspirators told him to have them ready for short-notice pickup?

What about Atzeroldt's statement about Booth telling him Mrs. Surratt was delivering the guns?

Well, ummm, it was a lie. Even Lloyd never said that Mary Surratt gave him the weapons. He said that John Surratt, David Herold, and Atzerodt brought the weapons. Lloyd said that on April 11 Mary told him to have the weapons ready for pickup, and that on April 14 she brought him some field glasses and again told him to have the weapons ready. And, I repeat again, that even Weichmann, who was right there with Mary Surratt, said he did not hear her say anything about guns.

As far as the cross-examination, the only thing I found by Lloyd was he couldn't recall what Surratt has first asked him and she was acting coy about it as to not bring attention to others. And even Jenkins said she was at Lloyd's and if she was trying to keep things concealed, she wouldn't have shouted it out. As far as private conversations with Booth, it is in the testimony she often spoke with him out of sound of others and those conversations were brief.

Sigh. . . . Okay, first of all, Lloyd later told several people that he only implicated Mary Surratt because he was physically abused and threatened with death. I know you don't care about that, which is odd, but that's what several people said he told them, and in the John Surratt trial Lloyd acknowledged that he was threatened. Two, the defense thoroughly established that Mary Surratt went to Surrattsville on the 11th and 14th because she urgently needed to collect a debt because she was being pressured by her creditor for money. They provided ample testimony and also produced documentation of the debt and of her creditor's notes to her demanding payment. But the judges simply ignored all this. Three, no one is disputing that Mary Surratt went to Surrattsville and that Lloyd was there for part of the time she was there. Four, "it is in the testimony" that Mary Surratt "often" spoke with Booth alone?! Ok, other than Weichmann, who said this? Her daughter didn't know anything about these alleged private conversations with Booth. Five, both Lloyd and Weichmann later told people that Mary was innocent and that they only implicated her under threat of death, etc., etc.
 
Last edited:
Oh, ok. And I guess you're okay with the fact that the prosecutors used bribed and coerced witnesses and employed the services of a conman? And, uh, what do you think would have happened if Conover had not been outed?
But he was outed and his testimony was pitiful. Post your evidence that witnesses were bribed and/or coerced.

Oh my goodness, are you serious? Ever heard of witnesses being coached on what to say? But, sometimes coached witnesses mess up when they have to provide a large amount of false testimony. They get confused. They forget. And, if they're lying against their will, they sometimes try to plant clues in their statements that they're lying, or they try to soften the impact of their lies.
Sure, but to that extent? That detailed? Remembering the fish and oysters but can't recall if Mary Surratt mentioned anything about people coming for hidden guns? And fixing the buggy spring? Remembering color of horses? The number of bottles of whiskey to prepare? No, way too detailed for that all to be coached.

Wrong. Go back and read his testimony: As I proved in my reply, he was drunk before he saw Mary Surratt, and then he drank again after she left. And Lloyd specified that his drinking did in fact hamper his memory.
I have read it. He was drinking that day and drank even more that evening. That was his testimony. But again, even a drunkard can remember when drunk. Heck, I'm one of those people. Doesn't matter how much I drink I can still recall conversations and events. I can be falling over and remember it the next day.

Uh, because one of the actual conspirators told him to have them ready for short-notice pickup?
Right, one of them did. Mrs. Surratt.

Well, ummm, it was a lie. Even Lloyd never said that Mary Surratt gave him the weapons. He said that John Surratt, David Herold, and Atzerodt brought the weapons. Lloyd said that on April 11 Mary told him to have the weapons ready for pickup, and that on April 14 she brought him some field glasses and again told him to have the weapons ready. And, I repeat again, that even Weichmann, who was right there with Mary Surratt, said he did not hear her say anything about guns.
Actually not a lie. I misspoke. I meant to type telling him to have them ready, not that she delivered them. And it's not surprising Weichmann or anyone else didn't hear their conversation. Lloyd: "Her language was indistinct, as if she wanted to draw my attention to something, so that no one else would understand. Finally, she came out more bolder with it, and said they would be wanted soon."

Sigh. . . . Okay, first of all, Lloyd later told several people that he only implicated Mary Surratt because he was physically abused and threatened with death. I know you don't care about that, which is odd, but that's what several people said he told them, and in the John Surratt trial Lloyd acknowledged that he was threatened. Two, the defense thoroughly established that Mary Surratt went to Surrattsville on the 11th and 14th because she urgently needed to collect a debt because she was being pressured by her creditor for money. They provided ample testimony and also produced documentation of the debt and of her creditor's notes to her demanding payment. But the judges simply ignored all this. Three, no one is disputing that Mary Surratt went to Surrattsville and that Lloyd was there for part of the time she was there. Four, "it is in the testimony" that Mary Surratt "often" spoke with Booth alone?! Ok, other than Weichmann, who said this? Her daughter didn't know anything about these alleged private conversations with Booth. Five, both Lloyd and Weichmann later told people that Mary was innocent and that they only implicated her under threat of death, etc., etc.
Well I'm going to ask you post specifics about Lloyd being 'coerced'. I am well aware of both Johnson and Aiken suggesting he was, but come on, they are more than a tad biased in that argument. As I said, I have not read much about John Surratt's trial so your claim, your burden of proof. I also have no doubt as to Mary seeking payment. It's a great cover story. And no reason both events couldn't have happened when she traveled there. And yes, there is testimony as to Mary speaking with Booth. Eliza Holahan states he spent most of his time with Mrs. Surratt. He would call for John, but if he wasn't there he would ask for Mary. Anna never said they spoke but very importantly never said they didn't. And Anna acknowledges Booth was there before Mary traveled on the 14th. And to your last point, again, provide that evidence so I can read it. But again, in his supposed deathbed confession he claims everything he testified to was the truth. Why suggest that if he told others long after their gone and he cannot be harmed if he was lying during the trial? Doesn't make sense.
 
Weichmann’s lies regarding Mary Surratt were not his only lies that were exposed at the military trial. Dr. Samuel Mudd’s defense team, led by Thomas Ewing, found numerous witnesses who debunked Weichmann’s claims about Mudd’s “meeting” with Booth at the National Hotel. Weichmann said the “meeting” occurred on January 15, 1865, but the defense produced five witnesses who confirmed that Mudd did not leave the vicinity of his house from December 24 until late March 1865.

Realizing that Weichmann’s story had been badly damaged by those five witnesses, the prosecution magically found a witness who gave a genuinely silly account that put Dr. Mudd in Washington on March 3, which was designed to refute the five witnesses who said that Mudd was not in Washington from December 24 to late March. The witness, Marcus Norton, said that while he was preparing his legal papers to argue a case before the Supreme Court on the morning of March 3, Dr. Mudd, whom he had never seen before, suddenly entered his room, said he was looking for “Mr. Booth’s room,” and then left! Really?! Anyway, this move ended up royally back-firing on the prosecution, because the defense produced eight witnesses who contradicted Morton's belated tale. Ewing said the following about this farce:

After the evidence for the defense above referred to had been introduced, refuting and completely overwhelming Weichmann's testimony and all inferences as to Dr. Mudd's complicity with Booth, which might be drawn from it, a new accuser was introduced against him on the same point, in the person of Marcus P. Norton, who said that at half-past 10 o'clock on the morning of the 3rd of March, as he was preparing his papers to go to the Supreme Court to argue a motion in a patent case there pending (which motion the record of the Court shows he did argue on that day), a stranger abruptly entered his room and as abruptly retired, saying he was looking for Mr. Booth's room; and though witness never saw Dr. Mudd before or since, until the day of his testifying, he says that stranger is the prisoner at the bar. He could not tell any article of the stranger's clothing except a black flat. . . .​

Fortunately for the accused, the 1st day of March was Ash Wednesday--the first day of Lent--a religious holiday of note and observance in the community of Catholics among whom he lived. Fortunately for him, too, his sister Mary was taken ill on that day, and required his medical attendance (at her father's house, on the farm adjoining his own, thirty miles from Washington) each day, from the 2d to the 7th of March, inclusive.​

By the aid of these two circumstances we have been able to show, by Thomas Davis, that the accused was at home at work on the 28th of February the day before Ash Wednesday; by Dr. Blanford, Frank Washington and Betty Washington, that he was there at work at home on the 1st of March; by Mary, Fanny, Emily and Henry L. Mudd, Betty and Frank Washington and Thomas Davis, that he was there on the 2d, 3d, 4th and 5th of March, at various hours of each day. At or within two hours of the time when Norton says he saw the accused enter the room at the National (half past 10 A. M., 3d of March), Mary, Emily; Fanny and Henry L. Mudd, Frank and Betty Washington, Thomas and John Davis, all testify most emphatically to having seen him at his house, on his farm, or at his father's house adjacent to his own--six hours' ride from Washington!​

We have shown, too, by Mary Mudd, that the accused has always worn a lead-colored hit whenever she has seen him this year, and that she has seen him almost daily; and by Henry Mudd, Dr. Blanford and Mary Mudd, that neither he nor his father owns a rockaway.​

Now, Norton either saw the accused enter his room on the morning of the 3d of March, or not at all, for his evidence, clinched as to the date by the record of the Supreme Court, excludes the supposition that he could have been mistaken as to the day. Nor can these eight witnesses for the defense be mistaken as to the day, for the incidents by which they recollect Mudd's presence fix the time in their memories exactly. With all this evidence before the Court, it cannot hesitate to hold the alibi established beyond all cavil [silly objection]. (“Argument on the Law and Evidence in the Case of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd, Part 2: Mudd’s Alleged Connections with the Booth Conspiracy Before the Assassination”)​

Perhaps because Ewing did such a good job of destroying the case against Dr. Mudd, even the military tribunal’s corrupt “judges” could not bring themselves to sentence Dr. Mudd to death. But, rather than doing the right thing and issuing a verdict of not guilty, they found him guilty but sentenced him to life in prison instead of death. How nice of them. This is another good example of just what a farce and mockery of justice the military trial was.
 
511RozLyOhL.jpg


On April 15, 1865, Dr. Samuel Mudd treated the broken leg of John Wilkes Booth just hours after Booth murdered President Lincoln. Learning of the assassination, and that the assassin was Booth, Mudd failed to notify the authorities who were stationed in Bryantown only five miles from his home. When subsequently questioned, Mudd lied repeatedly to the authorities. Since that time, a controversy has simmered regarding Mudd's innocence or complicity in the conspiracy.

Arguing forcefully and with the weight of great evidence, Dr. Edward Steers proves how mistaken modern efforts to exonerate Mudd are. Mudd knew Booth well having met with him on three previous occasions and entertaining him as an overnight guest just four months prior to the assassinate. Booth sought and received Mudd's help in putting together his team of conspirators aiding Booth both prior to and after the assassination. As this book so clearly points out, "His Name Is Still Mudd."


https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00A7IOPQA/?tag=civilwartalkc-20
 
On April 15, 1865, Dr. Samuel Mudd treated the broken leg of John Wilkes Booth just hours after Booth murdered President Lincoln. Learning of the assassination, and that the assassin was Booth, Mudd failed to notify the authorities who were stationed in Bryantown only five miles from his home. When subsequently questioned, Mudd lied repeatedly to the authorities. Since that time, a controversy has simmered regarding Mudd's innocence or complicity in the conspiracy.

Arguing forcefully and with the weight of great evidence, Dr. Edward Steers proves how mistaken modern efforts to exonerate Mudd are. Mudd knew Booth well having met with him on three previous occasions and entertaining him as an overnight guest just four months prior to the assassinate. Booth sought and received Mudd's help in putting together his team of conspirators aiding Booth both prior to and after the assassination. As this book so clearly points out, "His Name Is Still Mudd."


https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00A7IOPQA/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

Steers' book is a joke. In my opinion, Steers is such a blind and robotic partisan that he is not to be taken seriously. He simply tosses aside all evidence that he can't explain and then proceeds from there. Recall that Steers adamantly insisted that no such person as Andrew Potter existed--I have yet to see him retract this claim--but Potter's existence has now been soundly established. Steers also claimed that he thoroughly studied the Neff-Guttridge collection at Indiana State University in preparation for his attack on Neff and Guttridge's book Dark Union. But people who were at the university's library when Steers looked at the collection report that he was only there for four hours and that he examined only a fraction of the collection.

You might want to read Guttridge's reply to Steers' critique of Dark Union: https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/3873.

Perhaps you could tell me where in his book Steers substantively responds to the evidence that the Mudd-Booth-Weichmann "meeting" did not occur on January 15 but on December 23, for starters. For example, where does he substantively deal with the evidence I presented in my previous post regarding the date of that "meeting"?

Then, perhaps you could tell me where in his book Steers substantively responds to the evidence that the tales about Mudd hosting Confederate soldiers near his house were a mass of confusion and were actually describing innocent events that occurred long before the prosecution's witnesses said they did. Just take on those two tasks.
 
Last edited:
Recall that Steers adamantly insisted that no such person as Andrew Potter existed--I have yet to see him retract this claim--but Potter's existence has now been soundly established.

Which Andrew Potter?
From your source, which I have read before:

Response by Steers & Chaconas 4-23-04


There are at least 16 Andrew Potters serving in the Union army for which military records exist including Lt. Col. Andrew Potter, 34th Massachusetts (Boston). Since there is no organizational designation on the request regarding Hardie, Wright, or Potter, it is not possible to identify which of the several Andrew Potters the request is from. The request offers no proof that "Detective Andrew Potter" existed.

In his addendum Mr. Guttridge further writes "Steers-Chaconas also dismiss William B. Earle as undiscoverable." Guttridge misstates what we wrote. We wrote, "As with the other individuals mentioned throughout the Potter papers, William B. Earle is missing from Baker's pay roll records and papers." William B. Earle may have existed, but he was not one of Lafayette C. Baker's agents nor Boyd's "control officer" as Guttridge and Neff claim in their book.

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/3873
 
Which Andrew Potter?
From your source, which I have read before:

Response by Steers & Chaconas 4-23-04


There are at least 16 Andrew Potters serving in the Union army for which military records exist including Lt. Col. Andrew Potter, 34th Massachusetts (Boston). Since there is no organizational designation on the request regarding Hardie, Wright, or Potter, it is not possible to identify which of the several Andrew Potters the request is from. The request offers no proof that "Detective Andrew Potter" existed.

In his addendum Mr. Guttridge further writes "Steers-Chaconas also dismiss William B. Earle as undiscoverable." Guttridge misstates what we wrote. We wrote, "As with the other individuals mentioned throughout the Potter papers, William B. Earle is missing from Baker's pay roll records and papers." William B. Earle may have existed, but he was not one of Lafayette C. Baker's agents nor Boyd's "control officer" as Guttridge and Neff claim in their book.

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/3873

You might want to go back and reread Guttridge's response. He is talking about the Andrew Potter who was a detective. Steers and Choconas seek to cloud the issue by raising the straw-man point that there were other Andrew Potters--no one said there were not. But, again, Guttridge is talking about the one who was a detective.

By the way, some of the interviews that Detective Potter conducted are on file in the Neff-Guttridge collection at Indiana State University.

Are you going to tell me where you think Steers genuinely addresses the evidence I presented in my first post on Mudd, and where he actually deals with the evidence that the accounts of Mudd supposedly hosting Confederate soldiers near his house are hopelessly contradictory and are talking about innocent events that occurred long before the prosecution claimed they did?

While you're at it, what do you think of Steers' answer to the considerable evidence that Mudd was pro-Union and that he voted for the pro-Union candidate over the pro-secession candidate in 1860? Recall that the defense produced numerous ardently pro-Union witnesses who knew Mudd and who rejected the claim that he was anti-Union.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top