June 13, 1865

Tuesday, June 13, 1865

Previous Session       Trial Home       Next Session


The court convened at 11 o’clock.[1]

Present: All nine members of the military commission, the eight conspirators, Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt, Assistant Judge Advocates Bingham and Burnett, the recorders of the court, lawyers Frederick Aiken, John Clampitt, Walter Cox, William Doster, and Thomas Ewing.

Absent: Reverdy Johnson and Frederick Stone.

Seating chart:

The prisoners were seated in the same manner as the day before.

The reading of the prior day’s testimony was completed at about 12 o’clock.[2]

Walter Cox, lawyer for Michael O’Laughlen, drew the court’s attention to the following article from yesterday’s Evening Star newspaper which claimed that one of the letters entered into evidence at the trial on June 2nd was a fraud.

Assistant Judge Advocate John Bingham replied that the letter in question bore “unequivocal signs” that the writer was part of the plot to assassinate Lincoln. Cox responded that if the facts alluded to in the paper were accurate regarding this letter being a fraud, then it was the role of the government to disclose this to the conspirators’ defense and to the court. Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt admitted that the matter was being investigated by government. Cox used this reply from Holt to criticize the government’s admission of questionable letters in this way, referencing not only this letter (which was postmarked May 8th) but also the letter found floating in a wharf in Morehead City, NC in May, long after the assassination. Cox desired that the prosecution admit the possibility that these letters were frauds. Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham protested, stating that no such admission would go upon the record. If the defense wanted to discredit the letter, they could call Purdy or any of the people named in the letter as their witness, but attempting to discredit a piece of evidence with a newspaper article was not the proper means of doing so. Bingham then reiterated that the letter itself was dated April 6th and that the contents showed the writer had knowledge of the assassination prior to it being carried out. Bingham conveniently ignored the May 8th postmark which demonstrated the letter to have been a fabrication. Judge Advocate General Holt stated that Cox had clearly accomplished his purpose by bringing up the matter to the court and causing Holt to explain that an investigation into the claims of fraud was underway. Holt stated he did not intend to conceal the result of the investigation but that he objected that the newspaper article be placed upon the record. Bingham seconded, saying that he objected to “loose newspaper articles going upon the record.”

Thomas Ewing, lawyer for Dr. Mudd, Samuel Arnold, and Edman Spangler chimed in that, “It is undoubtedly very loose but no looser than that cipher letter picked up on the water of Morehead City.” Bingham retorted that the article was, “a good deal looser.” Refusing to back down, Ewing stated the article had just as much relevancy to the case as the Morehead City letter and that was admitted as evidence. Bingham countered that the Morehead letter was not evidence against the conspirators on trial, but against other parties, known and not known, named in the charges. Frederick Aiken, lawyer for Mrs. Surratt, joined the fray in support of the reliability of the Star newspaper. Aiken stated that Mr. Wallach, the editor of the Star, was well-known to be a truthful and careful editor who strove to be exact in all of his reporting. Aiken stated that Wallach would not admit an article of this kind unless there was a strong foundation for it.[3] John Clampitt, Aiken’s co-consul, endorsed Aiken’s assessment. This bit of praise from Aiken and Clampitt to the Star was noted by the paper, who felt that it may have been less than genuine:

“Lest praise from such an unexpected quarter as the Messrs. Aiken and Clampitt should be damaging to the Star as the legal advocacy of these gentlemen has been to their unfortunate client, it may be proper to say here that the uncomplimentary notices of Messrs. A. and C. the Star had had occasion to give them in connection with their notorious copperhead career, render it quite unlikely that their flattering allusions as above to the Star and its editor, are given in perfect good faith.”[4]

The Constitutional Union, a rival D.C. newspaper to the Star, likewise noted on the humorous nature of Aiken and Clampitt defending a newspaper which so often criticized them saying that Aiken’s, “remark occasioned no little merriment throughout the Court room”[5]

Judge Advocate General Holt ended the matter by saying he commended Cox for bringing this matter to the notice of the government but insisted that the article would not be entered in as evidence.[6] The letter in question would become the subject of continued debate on June 16th.


After the discussion of the Star article was complete, Holt suggested that a recess be taken so that Dr. James Hall could make a thorough examination of Lewis Powell as to judge his sanity. This was agreed to and during this time all of the conspirators except for Lewis Powell and Samuel Arnold were returned to their cells. Lewis Powell was taken into one of the rooms that adjoined the courtroom and was examined by Dr. Hall from about 1:00 – 1:30 in the presence of Gen. John Hartranft, the commander of the Old Arsenal Penitentiary. Powell was returned to his cell after the examination was complete.[7] Samuel Arnold was allowed to remain in the court room during the recess in conversation with his father[8], George (formerly Benedict) Arnold. The newspaper reporters, who seemed to have returned near the tail end of court’s recess commented on Arnold’s time with his dad:

“During the recess, Arnold was brought in, and being seated near the window, his father was granted an interview with him. The two immediately took seats in the box, where they talked earnestly together for several minutes, the father, during the interview, shedding tears freely. After a few hastily exchanged words, the father took his leave, wiping the tears from his eyes as he passed from the room, while Arnold turned his face to the window.”[9]

The recess lasted until the end of lunch and at 2 o’clock when the court reassembled.[10]

Testimony began

Dr. James C. Hall, a Washington physician, was called as a defense witness for Lewis Powell. Dr. Hall gave his report on the examination he made of Powell during the recess. He noted Powell’s relatively fine physical health aside from his constipation and slightly elevated heartbeat. When questioning Powell, Dr. Hall found that he answered slowly and took that to mean that Powell’s intellect was a very low order. Dr. Hall announced his belief that Powell’s mind was naturally feeble and dull. The doctor had asked Powell questions as to morality and criminal behavior. After giving Powell the scenario with which he was charged, brutally attacking Sec. Seward and his household, Powell replied that, in a war, a person was entitled to take life. When William Doster asked Dr. Hall his opinion on Powell’s sanity, Dr. Hall demurred, stating that he would need to see Powell more and consult the help of other, more learned men of insanity, to make a definitive reply. During cross-examination, Judge Advocate Holt asked Dr. Hall if he regarded Powell as sufficiently sane to be responsible for his acts. Dr. Hall again demurred, stating that a single examination was not enough to make up his mind on the subject either way. Dr. Hall stated he had suspicions that Powell was not completely sane. According to Dr. Hall, Powell did not appear to be faking any of his responses and, as far as Dr. Hall could tell, Powell answered the questions poised to him truthfully, albeit slowly.[11] Dr. Hall was unable to provide either the defense or the prosecution with definitive answers regarding Lewis Powell’s sanity on this date. He, along with other doctors, would be recalled to examine Powell again tomorrow.

Dr. John T. Hoxton, a physician from Surrattsville, MD, was called as a defense witness for Mary Surratt. Dr. Hoxton testified that he had known Mary Surratt since she moved into the area and that he had always believed her to be a truthful, Christian lady. When Frederick Aiken, Mrs. Surratt’s lawyer, asked him about Mrs. Surratt’s political sentiments, Dr. Hoxton admitted that he had not seen Mrs. Surratt much in the last few years and that he knew nothing about her politics. Aiken then asked Dr. Hoxton about Mrs. Surratt’s brother, John Z. Jenkins and his reputation. Dr. Hoxton stated that he understood Jenkins was a good Union man…up until about 1862. Since then, according to Dr. Hoxton, he understood Jenkins to have secessionist views. Dr. Hoxton stated that he had no firsthand knowledge about Jenkins protecting a Union flag. Aiken then changed to the subject of prosecution witness Rev. William Evans who had testified against Jenkins’ reputation. While Dr. Hoxton stated that Rev. Evans’ reputation had been impeached, he also admitted that he hadn’t interacted with the man in 10 years and that he really did not know what his reputation was in the community today.[12] As a defense witness, Dr. Hoxton was not at all helpful and, instead, supported the government’s attempt to discredit John Z. Jenkins’ reputation. This was yet another example of Frederick Aiken’s inexperience having a detrimental effect on his client’s case.

William W. Hoxton, a teacher in Prince George’s County, Maryland and the son of the previous witness, was called as a defense witness for Mrs. Surratt. Hoxton stated that he had known Mrs. Surratt for about twelve years and saw her often during the last four years. Hoxton considered Mrs. Surratt to be a church going woman who was very kind to the sick. When asked about her brother, John Z. Jenkins, Hoxton stated that he was the strongest Union man he ever saw when the war first broke out. Hoxton also admitted that he had heard Jenkins had changed recently, especially after the loss of his slaves. However, Hoxton stated that he, himself, had never heard Jenkins say anything disloyal or critical of the government even after slavery was ended in Maryland.[13] The younger Hoxton’s defense testimony was a bit better than his father’s but still demonstrated that John Zadoc Jenkins was known to be disloyal by reputation.

Henry Hawkins, an African American man formerly enslaved by Mrs. Surratt, was called as a defense witness. Hawkins was asked about the time when seven horses belonging to the government broke free from the neighborhood of Giesboro and were rounded up near Surrattsville. Hawkins stated that the horses were kept in Mrs. Surratt’s stables and that she fed and cared for them until the government sent for them. Hawkins did not believe Mrs. Surratt ever received any sort of payment for assisting the government in this matter. Hawkins also stated that Mrs. Surratt was a kind enslaver who treated him well. She was also known to feed, without payment, Union soldiers who passed by her house. Hawkins claimed that he heard that Mrs. Surratt’s vision was poor and that she had to wear glasses but he never saw her wear them himself.[14] Hawkins provided a small bit of levity on this day. When asked how long he had lived at Surrattsville, Hawkins replied, “Ever since I have been there,” the honesty of which resulted in laughter throughout the court.[15]

Rachel Semus, an African-American woman formerly enslaved and rented by Mrs. Surratt, was called as a defense witness. Semus was asked the same basic questions as Henry Hawkins before her. She stated that Mrs. Surratt had treated her well as a servant and that Mrs. Surratt was known to feed passing Union soldiers with the best that she had in the house. She even gave up her last ham for the soldiers on one occasion. Semus stated that Mrs. Surratt told her she never took any pay from the soldiers. Semus reiterated that Mrs. Surratt’s eyesight was poor and that she often had to thread needles for Mary. Semus recalled another instance where Father Lanahan came to visit and Mrs. Surratt was convinced it was her son, John, coming towards the house because her eyesight was so bad.[16] Rachel also testified at the trial of John Surratt in 1867, going by the name of Hawkins. It is believed that she married Henry Hawkins, the prior witness. Many years later, in 1892, “Aunt Rachel” was interviewed about her time with Mrs. Surratt and still defended her former enslaver.

John M. Lloyd, the tenant of Mrs. Surratt’s tavern, was recalled by Mary Surratt’s defense for cross-examination after previously testifying for the prosecution on May 13 and 15th. Frederick Aiken asked Lloyd about his role in hiding the carbines that John Surratt had brought to the tavern prior to the assassination. Lloyd narrated how he, along with John Surratt, took the weapons upstairs and hid them between the floor and joists of the second floor. This required Lloyd to explain the layout of the tavern so the court understood how this was easily accomplished. Aiken then asked about the package Lloyd had received from Mary Surratt on the day of the assassination. Lloyd replied that he got this package of out by the woodpile and that it was after this conversation with Mrs. Surratt that he took the rifles out of their hiding spot in preparation for callers later that night. Aiken also produced a bottle and tumbler, likely from the tavern, and asked Lloyd if the bottle was the one he took out to the visitors that night. Lloyd stated that the bottle was like it, but not the same one. He had no idea about the tumbler. Aiken asked about when Lloyd made his confession to Detective Cottingham regarding his visitors and Mrs. Surratt’s statements to him which Lloyd stated occurred on Saturday. Aiken countered with the question, “did you deny to him for two days knowing anything about the affair,” but Assistant Judge Advocate Bingham objected to the question and it was waived.[17]

Emma Offutt, John M. Lloyd’s sister-in-law, was recalled by Mrs. Surratt’s defense after previously testifying for the prosecution on May 17th. Offutt stated that Lloyd was very much in liquor on evening of April 14th, more than she had ever seen him before. He was so intoxicated she needed to help him take off his coat. Offutt also stated that she was partly with Lloyd when he was with Det. Cottingham and that she never heard him say anything about Mrs. Surratt. Aiken then announced to the court that Mrs. Offutt wished to amend her previous testimony having been unwell and under the effects of laudanum the last time she took the stand. When asked last time whether Mrs. Surratt gave her a package, Offutt had replied “no”. She now wished to make it clear that Mrs. Surratt did give her a package when she visited the tavern on April 14th and that this occurred before John M. Lloyd arrived. Offutt stated that she had no knowledge of what was in the package and believes she put it somewhere in the parlor of the tavern. Later, when Lloyd arrived, she saw that he and Mrs. Surratt had a conversation near the wood pile but she did not hear anything that was said between them and was in and out of the tavern while it occurred. When Lloyd eventually came into the house after Mrs. Surratt had departed, she saw a package in his hands. Mrs. Offutt said she did not know where that package came from. She did not see any package in his possession when he was on the porch prior to entering but wasn’t sure about that. She also did not see the package Mrs. Surratt had given her after that. In the end, Mrs. Offutt admitted that it was possible that Mrs. Surratt could have grabbed the package from the parlor and given it to Lloyd or that Lloyd might have picked the package up himself after seeing it on the parlor. This entire testimony was filled with antipathy between Mrs. Surratt’s lawyers of Aiken and Clampitt and the prosecution of John Bingham and Joseph Holt. They regularly objected to each other’s examinations and accused each other of putting words into Mrs. Offutt’s mouth. In the end, the court had to cut out the lawyers completely and ask questions themselves in order to finish things.[18] While the defense was hoping that Mrs. Offutt’s testimony would prove Lloyd a liar regarding how he came to possess the package of field glasses from Mrs. Surratt, Offutt’s uncertainty of what occurred and her insistence that she, “did not wish to impeach Mr. Lloyd at all,” negated any positive effect for the defense.

Major Thomas T. Eckert, the Chief of the War Department Telegraph Staff, was recalled by the prosecution for the fifth time. Eckert had previously testified on May 12, 20, 22, and June 9th. This time Eckert was able to answer the question that he was not sure of during his previous time on the stand. Eckert testified that General Benjamin Butler and his troops had departed New York City on November 14, 1864.[19] This testimony related to the failed plot to burn New York City which occurred on November 25, 1864 and was previously testified to by Col. Martin Burke. The prosecution was showing that the arsonists deliberately waited until after the military had departed before enacting their attack against civilian targets. This testimony was not connected to the conspirators now on trial but was to further the government’s case that the Confederacy endorsed such black flag warfare activities.

Richard Montgomery, a resident of New York and self-professed federal spy, was recalled by the prosecution after previously testifying on May 12 and the day before. During this time on the stand, Montgomery was asked about the travel time between Montreal, Canada and Washington, D.C. Montgomery stated that the trip took about 36 – 38 hours by train. He answered in the affirmative when the prosecution asked if a person could have departed Montreal on the 3:00 pm train on April 12th and arrived in D.C. early in the morning on April 14th.[20]

Though he had previously informed the court that his cases had been closed, Thomas Ewing asked permission to recall one of the defense witnesses for Edman Spangler. This request was allowed

John L. DeBonay, a prompter and actor at Ford’s Theatre, was recalled after previously testifying on May 31st. Thomas Ewing, Spangler’s lawyer, went through his normal slew of questions all of which dealt with pieces of the prosecution’s case against his client. DeBonay stated that he did not notice Spangler after the assassination until he came up front with the rest of the crew. This was to dismiss the shaky testimony of Joseph Stewart who thought that perhaps Spangler shut the back door of Ford’s after Booth escaped. DeBonay stated that he did not see prosecution witness John Selecman anywhere near the door when Booth first arrived. This was to counter Selecman’s claim that he heard Booth tell Spangler, “Ned, you will help me all you can, won’t you?” DeBonay even stated that he was out front on the pavement outside of Ford’s Theatre five minutes before the assassination and that Spangler was not there. He also stated that Spangler had never worn a mustache. These answers countered the testimony of Sgt. Dye who claimed a mustachioed Spangler was out front with other men calling out the time prior to the assassination. Lastly, DeBonay gave his opinion that Spangler was not one to be entrusted with secrets. According to DeBonay, Spangler was a nice man but prone to talk a lot, especially after a few drinks. Such a man could not be entrusted with important secrets. This was to demonstrate to the court how Booth would have never entrusted Spangler with information about his plot.[21]

John V. Pyles, a farmer from Prince George’s County, Maryland, was called as a defense witness for Mrs. Surratt. Pyles testified that he had known John Zadoc Jenkins, Mrs. Surratt’s brother, since boyhood and that he had regarded Jenkins as one of the most loyal Union men in the county. Pyles recalled how Jenkins joined a group of good Union men to defend a Union flag that had been put up after the First Battle of Bull Run. A rumor was that some of the more disloyal populace was going to tear it down and Jenkins, Pyles, and other protected it. Pyles stated he never heard any disloyal sentiments from Jenkins but also admitted that he had not seen him in some time. During the prosecution’s cross-examination, they asked about Jenkins’ reputation in the community, rather than Pyles’ personal opinion. Pyles said that the rumor had been that, once Jenkins had lost his slaves, he was no longer the strong Union man he once was. However, Pyles did suggest that some ill feeling between Andrew Robey and Jenkins may have contributed to these rumors of disloyal sentiments.[22]

Andrew Kaldenbach, a resident of Prince George’s County, Maryland, was recalled by Mrs. Surratt’s defense after previously testifying for the prosecution on June 7th. Kaldenbach stated that he was at the Surratt Tavern on April 23rd when John M. Lloyd was brought by Det. Cottingham. Frederick Aiken asked Kaldenbach is Lloyd said anything akin to Mrs. Surratt being a vile woman who had ruined him. Kaldenbach denied any such statement occurred. During cross-examination, Kaldenbach at first continued to state that Mrs. Surratt’s name was not mentioned by Lloyd at that time. The only thing Lloyd said in relation to the events of the 14th was a comment that he had been, “innocently persuaded into this matter.” As the prosecution continued to question Kaldenbach, he began to shift his view a little from admitting he assumed the person who had persuaded Lloyd was Mrs. Surratt to changing the statement he heard to include her name or the name of the Surratt family. Frederick Aiken and John Clampitt tried to get Kaldenbach to alter his now different statement, but their questions were objected to as attempts to impeach their own witness.[23]

Following Kaldenbach’s testimony, Frederick Aiken announced that the defense’s case for Mary Surratt was now closed. Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt stated that he had come to an agreement with Lewis Powell’s lawyer, William Doster, to provide additional time for his client to be examined to determine his sanity. Holt stated that the examination by physicians would occurred tomorrow morning and recommended that the court not convene until noon in order to give the doctors adequate time.[24] This suggestion was agreed to by the commission and the court adjourned at 4 o’clock.[25]


From General Kautz’ diary:

“The court met as usual but did not transact much business. The sanity of Payne was not settled, and the Surgeon Dr. Hall said there was ground for the suspicion of insanity…There was a heavy rain this evening after the commission adjourned and I did not get my normal ride.”[26]

Newspaper Descriptions

Mrs. Surratt

“Mrs. Surratt occupies her usual seat. She still sits with her veil down and her fan before her face. The visitors at the court, especially the ladies, seem much disappointed in not obtaining a view of her face.”[27]

Lewis Powell

“Payne also has his hair cut, and is attired in a mixed grey shirt this morning. He sits in the same position as usual, his head thrown back against the wall.”[28]

“During the recess of the court, Dr. Hall and Stone made an examination of Payne in the room adjoining the Court room.”[29]

David Herold

“Herold appeared in court this morning with no coat, vest, or shirt collar. He has been cleanly shaved and his hair cut. He sits gazing about the room.”[30]

George Atzerodt

“Atzerodt is attired in a mixed grey shirt, the same color as Payne’s. This morning he appeared with a black vest on, open in front.”[31]

Dr. Mudd

“Mudd is attired the same as usual in the brown linen coat like Spangler. He looks sorrowful and miserable.”[32]

Samuel Arnold

“Arnold is attired in a white shirt, no collar or vest. During the reading of the testimony he stood up, leaning against the window and gazing upon the reader.”[33]

“At two o’clock the Court reassembled. Arnold was the first prisoner brought in. After being seated his father was allowed to hold a conversation with him for some minutes. His father having retired, the other prisoners were brought in and seated.”[34]

“Arnold’s father was permitted an interview with his son to day, the former freely shedding tears.”[35]

Michael O’Laughlen

“O’Laughlin appeared again this morning in a white shirt, with no collar or vest.”[36]

Edman Spangler

“Spangler is attired in a mixed grey shirt, with no vest. During the time occupied in reading the testimony of yesterday he sat with his head resting on the rail in front of him, and presents a miserable appearance.”[37]


“Visitors still continue to fill the court-room, and by the hour for opening the court-room is densely crowded, every seat being occupied. During the day large crowds continue to arrive, and in a short time the room is uncomfortably crowded.”[38]

“The crowd of spectators is very large, as the impression prevails that the trial will very soon close, and that the opportunity to visit the Court room and see the prisoners will not be much longer available.”[39]

Previous Session        Trial Home       Next Session

[1] John F. Hartranft, The Lincoln Assassination Conspirators: Their Confinement and Execution, as Recorded in the Letterbook of John Frederick Hartranft, ed. Edward Steers, Jr. and Harold Holzer (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 2009), 122.
[2] Constitutional Union (Washington, D.C.), June 13, 1865, 2.
[3] William C. Edwards, ed., The Lincoln Assassination – The Court Transcripts (Self-published: Google Books, 2012), 1142 – 1143.
[4] Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), June 13, 1865, 2.
[5] Constitutional Union (Washington, D.C.), June 13, 1865, 2.
[6] Edwards, Court Transcripts, 1143.
[7] Hartranft, Letterbook, 122.
[8] Ibid., 122.
[9] Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), June 13, 1865, 2.
[10] Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), June 13, 1865, 2.
[11] Edwards, Court Transcripts, 1143 – 1147.
[12] Ibid., 1147 – 1149.
[13] Ibid., 1149 – 1150.
[14] Ibid., 1150 – 1151.
[15] Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), June 13, 1865, 2.
[16] Edwards, Court Transcripts, 1151 – 1153.
[17] Ibid., 1153 – 1155.
[18] Ibid., 1155 – 1166.
[19] Ibid., 1166.
[20] Ibid., 1166 – 1167.
[21] Ibid., 1167 – 1170.
[22] Ibid., 1170 – 1172.
[23] Ibid., 1172 – 1175.
[24] Ibid., 1175.
[25] Hartranft, Letterbook, 122.
[26] August V. Kautz, June 13, 1865 diary entry (Unpublished diary: Library of Congress, August V. Kautz Papers).
[27] Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), June 13, 1865, 2.
[28] Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), June 13, 1865, 2.
[29] Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), June 13, 1865, 2.
[30] Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), June 13, 1865, 2.
[31] Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), June 13, 1865, 2.
[32] Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), June 13, 1865, 2.
[33] Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), June 13, 1865, 2.
[34] Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), June 13, 1865, 2.
[35] The Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia, PA), June 14, 1865, 1.
[36] Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), June 13, 1865, 2.
[37] Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), June 13, 1865, 2.
[38] Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), June 13, 1865, 2.
[39] Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), June 13, 1865, 2.
The drawing of the conspirators as they were seated on the prisoners’ dock on this day was created by artist and historian Jackie Roche.


5 thoughts on “June 13, 1865

  1. Pingback: The Trial Today: June 13 | BoothieBarn

  2. I’m a descendant of John Lloyd. To this date, I still do not believe John Lloyd was inebriated in any way. He was described as a very kind person and was beloved by all in the family who new him and his wife. Alcohol has never set well on the stomach with any of the Lloyd family that I can remember. Although I do find it hard to believe that he didn’t have any knowledge of the events, I don’t believe he would have direct knowledge of a murder plot. He was a retired DC policeman and even though he had Southern sympathies as the others in the area, I think he was not in any collusion with a murder plot. He later died when a mass of bricks fell on his head. This is written in a book by Daniel Boone Lloyd.

    • Michelle,
      John Lloyd very much admitted to being drunk on the night of April 14th so I think we have to take him at his word on that. Other witnesses also mentioned Lloyd being a moderate drinker. I have read part of the Lloyds of Southern Maryland book that you mentioned and used it to track down the home John M. Lloyd grew up in: https://lincolnconspirators.com/2015/05/31/lloyd-ering-around-banks-odee/

      • Thank you for the information. I live 20 minutes away from Banks Odee and have investigated the area myself, as well as a few other places in the Lloyd Book. I was, in fact, married in a church on Garret Farm, which is encompassed somewhat by a military base. It is always interesting to learn new things about the older generations. I don’t think John Lloyd was a major player in any murder plot, however. He was probably very intimidated. He told his wife that he was to be shot upon his being taken for questioning, so he probably knew of some wrong doing. In the same situation, I am not sure how I’m involvement. Being drunk sounds better than being involved, I dare say.

  3. Pingback: Formerly Enslaved Voices in the Lincoln Assassination Trial | LincolnConspirators.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: