lincoln. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and it's your testimony that in none of these meetings you don't have any recollection of a single word that booth ever said to you. that's what you told miss conte. >> that's correct. >> so as you sit here now under oath before this jury, you don't have any recollection of any conversation you ever had with booth other than generally remembering there was small talk. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> i mean, for example, 12 days before the assassination of abraham lincoln, just 12 days before, you commissioned someone to bring booth to your boarding house so you could have a private meeting with him. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> you sent mr. lewis weichman to go fetch mr. booth. is that correct? >> yes, i did. >> and he did. mr. weichman went and brought this famous actor to your boarding house and you proceeded to have a private meeting with him. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and just the two of you had a

discussion. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and the discussion went on for several minutes. is that correct? >> yes. >> and it's your testimony today that that conversation where you took the trouble to bring this famous actor to your house for a private discussion, you have no recollection of anything said in that conversation. according to what you told miss conte? is that correct? >> that is my testimony, yes, sir. >> not a single word, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> now, we also know that on april 11th, three days before the assassination of abraham lincoln, that you decided you wanted to go to surrattsville, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> now, we now know that surrattsville turned out to be a place where guns were stored and, on the night of the assassination of abraham lincoln, booth went to surrattsville and received aid and comfort there, is that correct? >> i heard that testimony, but i have no knowledge of those matters.

>> but you now have heard testimony that happened, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and you don't doubt it, do you? are you doubting that happened? >> i don't doubt it. >> and so surrattsville -- so you decided on april 11th to go to surrattsville. and you needed to get a buggy to go there, is that correct? >> yes. >> and of all the people in the world you could have chosen to contact to get a buggy, tell the jury who you chose to contact. >> i chose to contact mr. booth. >> john wilkes booth, the man who three days later killed president lincoln, you chose to reach out to him to get a buggy. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and you sent mr. weichman to get the buggy. and mr. booth didn't have a buggy available so he paid $10 so you could go to surrattville, that's your testimony, isn't it? >> yes, sir. >> so this man john wilkes booth decided that of all the things he has to do on his life, he decided to fork out $10 so you could go to surrattsville on personal business. that's your testimony?

>> that is my testimony. >> he's a very generous man, isn't he? >> objection. argumentative. >> sustained. >> let me ask you this. as you sit here now, his decision to spend $10 so you could go to surrattsville, a place that turned out to be a place where guns were stored, is it your testimony that mr. booth just did that to help you out for no reason at all or just to help you? because you went there to collect a private debt? >> i don't know why mr. booth chose to help me. you'd have to ask him. >> it wasn't because you were part of the conspiracy, was it? >> no, sir. >> we also know that on april 14, 1865, the day that lincoln was assassinated, seven or eight hours before the assassination, of all the people in the world you chose to meet with you chose to have another private meeting with john wilkes booth, is that correct? >> he came to my boarding house. >> he came there and you had a private meeting with him, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and you spent several minutes

discussing something with him on the day that lincoln was assassinated. is that correct? >> he was there for a few minutes, yes. >> pardon me? >> he was there for a few minutes, yes. >> and had a private discussion with you, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and it's your testimony under oath to our jury that on the day that lincoln was assassinated, one of the great days in american history, you have no recollection at all of a single word you talked about with this famous actor john wilkes booth, is that correct? >> that is my testimony. >> that is your testimony, is it not? >> yes, sir. >> not a clue as to what you talked about that day. >> i don't recall. >> you've searched your memory and cannot remember a word that was said in that private conversation? >> objection, judge. argumentative. he's badgering the witness. >> she can answer. >> you don't remember a word, do you? >> i don't recall. >> by the way, your son and john wilkes booth were close friends, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and we'll come back to your son in a minute. but they frequently had meetings and had discussions during this time period, is that correct? >> yes. >> now, beyond john wilkes

booth, as far as your relationship to the people that eventually participated in this conspiracy to assassinate high government officials, there's another man named george atzerodt one of the defendants in this case, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> you're aware now, at least you've heard testimony in our courtroom,that mr. atzerodt joined the conspiracy and he was the person that was assigned to assassinate vice president johnson that night, is that correct? >> i'm aware of that now. >> you don't doubt that now that you've heard this testimony, do you? >> i don't. >> now, it happens to be that you had contact with him also, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> because he also became a boarder and stayed at your house. at your boarding house in d.c. >> yes, sir. >> in the time -- the short time before the assassination. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> now, you've heard testimony in this case that for example mr. atzerodt was heavily involved with your son john and

others in storing weapons at your surrattsville, maryland, property in march of 1865 in another plot to kidnap abraham lincoln. you've heard that testimony? >> i have heard that testimony. >> and mr. atzerodt, when he stayed at your house, your boarding house, you sometimes had conversations with him, is that correct? >> i've never had a conversation with mr. atzerodt except when i was evicting him. >> but you do know mr. atzerodt. >> yes, sir. >> and how long did he live at your boarding house? >> he was there for a few days until i found alcohol in his room. >> and then you said you kicked him out, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> now, just so the jury understands, is it your testimony that it's just pure coincidence that two of the prime movers in the assassination of abraham lincoln are people that you had contact with at your boarding house in the days and weeks leading up to the assassination of abraham lincoln?

>> i can't say whether that was coincidence. >> well, what is it then? >> i don't know. you'd have to ask them. >> well, it doesn't stop with those two, does it? as far as the coincidences. >> objection, your honor. argumentative. >> i'll strike that. lewis powell is another one of the defendants, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and mr. powell, his job was to assassinate secretary of state seward on the night of april 14, 1865, is that correct? >> that's what i've come to understand. >> you've heard testimony about that? >> yes, sir. >> and we know from the evidence in this case he also by coincidence became a boarder at your boarding house, is that correct? >> yes, he was a boarder. but i knew him as mr. wood. >> he used an alias at your place? is that correct? >> yes. boarding house i believe shortly

>> and he stayed at your boarding house i believe shortly before the assassination on was it four different nights? >> yes, sir, i believe so. >> okay. and you were fascinated by mr. powell because you actually made comments to people that you thought he was a great-looking baptist preacher or words to that effect, is that correct? >> i may have said that. i don't specifically recall. >> apparently your eyesight was such that when you saw him you didn't have trouble recognizing that he was a great-looking -- >> -- as opposed to an average-looking baptist preacher, is that fair to say? >> judge, argumentative. >> i think the defense opened the door to the religion issue. you can answer the question. >> could you repeat the question, please? >> you apparently could see him well enough with all the eyesight problems you have to make out his features in a way that you were able to determine that he was a great-looking baptist preacher, is that correct? >> well, it was probably broad

daylight then. and i was able to see him more clearly. >> when miss conte was standing right here and you said you could not make out her features, you could not make out her features standing here but you could recognize -- you could recognize this great-looking baptist preacher standing in your presence in daylight? is that your testimony? >> certainly. he was standing closer to me. >> let's talk about how close he was to you because we just found out that three days after the assassination of abraham lincoln the military police were at your apartment, is that correct? or at your house? >> yes, sir. >> and at that time, by happenstance, along comes mr. powell showed up, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and you at that time rose your hand up in the air and you swore to god that you did not recognize him and had no idea who he was, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and same oath you've taken here, is that correct? >> yes, sir.

>> and you swore to god to that military police that this man standing three feet away from you, this great-looking baptist preacher, you told them you had no idea who he was, is that correct? >> that is correct. i did not recognize him. >> now, so is it just a coincidence that now we have three of the coconspirators, all of whom have contact with you at the boarding house? that's just a coincidence? >> i guess so. >> well, let's talk about one more quickly. we have john lloyd who testified in this trial that he's the person who on the night of the assassination was running your property in surrattsville and that after the assassination booth rode on a horse out to his place and received comfort, whiskey, a carbine, some field glasses? is that correct? you've heard that testimony? >> i've heard that testimony. >> and we know that mr. lloyd has testified about incriminating conversations with you where you advised lloyd

on april 11th and april 14th that somebody would be coming to the -- to your surrattsville property to pick up firearms. is that correct? >> i have heard mr. lloyd's testimony, yes. >> in fact, he said you actually said that to him on april 14th, is that correct? >> that's what he said. that's correct. >> only you told the jury a moment ago that they shouldn't consider a word he said because he was a drunk, and he was drunk that day. is that correct? >> he was in his cups that day, sir. >> that is the man, by the way, this man fallen down drunk when your buggy would not work and it had to go back to dc. of all the people you went to him and asked him to fix your buggy, is that correct? this broken down drunk?

is that correct? >> yes. >> and he did fix your buggy, did he not, and sent you on your way back to d.c.? >> temporarily fixed it, sir. >> by the way, this broken down drunk that you've denigrated in this courtroom, the only property -- virtually all of your property was out there in surrattsville, a barn, a tavern and a cow. of all the people you left to entrust your property to, you chose him to manage your property, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and you've heard him admit that he helped booth after finding out that booth had just killed lincoln, he assisted booth that night. is that correct? you heard him testify? you heard that, is that correct? >> i heard that testimony, yes. >> and you know that you then -- we also know -- so he's the fourth person that by coincidence you had association with that was involved in the plot to kill high-ranking public officials, is that correct? >> seems to be. >> let's ask about the fifth one. the fifth one is your son, john surratt, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> you just told the jury that john surratt is someone you have no information or knowledge or any reason to believe that he was involved in the plot to kill

high-ranking officials, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> john surratt? what is he -- at the time now he's 21 or 22 years old? >> he's 21 years old. >> he's your son and you care for him very deeply, is that correct? >> oh, yes, i do. >> and he cares for you very deeply, is that correct? >> i believe so. >> and right now it's your belief that he's now hiding in canada because of warrants for his arrest here in the u.s., is that correct? >> i believe he's in canada, yes. >> and is there a reason why he -- strike the question. we also know, as you sit here on this witness stand, you're fighting for your life to avoid the gallows, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and he has not returned to the u.s. to testify for you or show any support whatsoever. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> he has not been here a single day during this trial, has he? >> no. >> and do you think there may be a very good reason why john surratt, your son, is hiding in canada and not coming back to try to help his mother? do you think it could be because he's the fifth conspirator that you've had contact with?

>> objection, your honor. it's speculative and compound and impossible to understand. >> sustained. >> let me ask you, is there a reason why your son chose not to -- do you know a reason why he has chosen to let you sit here without his help and stayed in canada as this trial goes forward? >> i cannot speak for my son. i do not know. >> did you ever -- you've heard testimony about your son's involvement in moving weapons out to your surrattsville property? >> i heard the testimony. >> you're aware of the allegations that your son was involved in the conspiracy, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and you're also aware that as you sit here now, for some powerful reason he has not returned to testify for you. is that fair to say? >> objection, your honor. badgering the witness. asked and answered. >> sustained. >> i have no more questions.

>> counsel, are we prepared to begin with closing arguments? >> we are. >> we are, your honor. >> you may proceed. >> may it please the court. mr. monaco. ladies and gentlemen. ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my name is again is michael monico with dan webb. we represent the united states in this case. we are here today in this grand auditorium far from the battlegrounds of the civil war, far from the terror that gripped this nation following the assassination of abraham lincoln. it has been almost 150 years since those terrible events so it is easy for us here today

to lose perspective on the enormity of the conspiracy charge and the gravity of the crimes committed. the size, the scope, the horror of this conspiracy that these defendants are charged with must be understood to place into context the actions of mary surratt. it is her own actions that prove that she is not a victim of a series of unfortunate coincidences. they prove that she was a knowing and willing member of this conspiracy. what are the goals of this conspiracy? the goals were not merely to assassinate president lincoln, as horrible as that was, as wrenching as that was to this country. it was also to kill vice president andrew johnson, the secretary of state william

seward, and ulysses s. grant, the commander of the armies. these acts were all to occur on one day, april 14, 1865, good friday. these men and this woman wanted to decapitate our government, to create panic and fear, to spread terror among our citizens. just after we thought the war was over, just after robert e. lee had surrendered, this long and deadly and miserable war was finally over so the good and decent people of this country thought. but there were people like john wilkes booth and mary surratt and their co-conspirators who are confederate sympathizers and former slave owners. people like mary's son, john

jr., who in march of 1865 along with two other conspirators, david herald and john atzerodt, brought weapons to the home of mary surratt in surrattsville. and they hid them there a month before the assassination. people like lewis powell who went by the name of reverend wood or lewis payne, who was passed along with david herald to kill secretary of state william seward. and they came pretty close. lewis powell clubbed the son of the secretary of state and stabbed the secretary of state repeatedly around the face and was only the fact that he had a broken jaw and the splint on his jaw prevented powell from decapitating him.

people like david herald who i mentioned. these -- and george atzerodt. george atzerodt was unable, was unsuccessful in killing andrew johnson, but he did rent a room on the same floor of the same hotel as andrew johnson in preparation for doing it. so these people were driven with hate to murder. but more than murder, they wanted to bring down the government. their deeper motive was to deprive every former slave in this country with the rights that we hold so dear. we also know that their ringleader, john wilkes booth on that very day, april 14, 1865, assassinated president lincoln in ford theater and after doing so jumped down to the stage and shouted "sic semper tyrannus," the south is avenged.

it means thus always tyrants, slave state of virginia, the home state of the confederacy. there is no doubt about the motives of these people, about the excessive hatred for president lincoln and everything he stood for. and there is no doubt that the defendant mary surratt was a member of the conspiracy. his honor will explain what a conspiracy means. under the law a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful purpose. so in its essence, a conspiracy is simply an agreement to commit a crime. as the judge will further instruct you, the government must prove three things -- that a conspiracy existed, that mary surratt knowingly became a member of the conspiracy with the intention to further the conspiracy, and third that an overt act was committed by at least one conspirator and furthering the conspiracy. as far as the first and third elements are concerned the defense has not contested them nor could they, that a conspiracy existed and overt acts were committed.

which leaves only number two, was mary surratt a knowing member of the conspiracy. it is our burden to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. we welcome that burden. it is the same burden we face in every criminal case. let's examine the facts of this case. in light of the circumstances, the facts that show beyond any reasonable doubt that mary surratt is guilty. and, by the way, you are free in your deliberations to use your common sense, to consider the inferences, the reasonable inferences that you can draw from the facts of this case. when considered in context, when considered in totality, all of the evidence in this case leads to one inescapable conclusion. that mary surratt was a member of the conspiracy and wanted it to succeed. let's discuss mary surratt and her credibility. we know she's intelligent. we know she's a careful person. we know that before the war she and her husband owned slaves.

we know she had property in surrattsville, maryland, two hours outside washington. we also know she had a home which she turned into a boarding home in washington, d.c. we know that several of the members of this conspiracy were at her home regularly and often. the men who lived in her home, the men to whom she served supper were members of this conspiracy. what about her credibility? three points about her credibility. one, on april 17th, three days after the assassination, when the military police came to her home looking for her son and john wilkes booth, and they questioned her, a man came to the door, lewis powell. lewis powell had come to her door that night seeking refuge.

we know that powell had been a boarder several days at her house. we know she served him supper. we also know she remarked how handsome he was. and he was a handsome man. but when asked in her home on april 17th, do you know this man, she raised her hand in sort of a dramatic gesture and said, i swear by god i have never seen this man. her excuse to you today is that she has poor eyesight and it was dark. does that make sense? does that make sense that this careful, intelligent woman when asked the most important question of her life, on the most important day of her life, would not take the time to go up and look at him if her eyesight was that bad? no. she had good reason for denying

that she knew who that man was. because she knew what mr. powell had done three days earlier. secondly, she says she has no recollection of any of the conversations with john wilkes booth. john wilkes booth, the most famous man in america on april 15th, the day after he killed the president. we know she asked weichman to bring him to her. we know she had private conversations with him on the very day of the assassination of our beloved president. what person in america who had a conversation with john wilkes booth on april 14th would forget it? ever? thirdly, we know she lied about not -- and maybe she's just protecting her son. but we know she lied about that. her son brought the weapons, hid them out on her property with

her tenant, and she went out and told the tenant, get the guns ready, get the rifles ready. she told him that on april 14, 1865. she said, men will be coming for them later today. and in fact they came. we know of john surratt's sympathies for his involvement in this case. the reality is that mary surratt was connected to all these other members of the conspiracy. the reality is that she assisted these men. in march of 1865 when the guns were brought out there, this conspiracy was already under way. she was already deeply embedded in it. these men were about to engage in a dangerous activity. they had to meet in march and april. they had to have plans. where did they meet? where did they stay? but at mary surratt's home? john wilkes booth the ringleader first came by the home in early 1865.

booth visited the home again on numerous occasions prior to april 14th. and he met with her in person many times. mary surratt may not remember today what those conversations were about. but we know. we know by her actions. on april the 11th, three days before the assassination, mary surratt had lewis weichman bring a buggy, paid for by john wilkes booth, who was in the heart and the midst of planning his assassination. he takes the time to get a buggy for his friend, mrs. surratt, and she uses that buggy to go out to see john lloyd, her tenant, three days before the assassination. and she says that day, get the shooting irons ready for they

will soon be needed. why did john wilkes booth pay for mrs. surratt to go to surrattsville? i suggest to you it makes more sense because she was furthering the conspiracy. he paid for her to go a second time the very day of the conspiracy, right after he met with her at 2:30 p.m. on april 14th she and weichman again take the two-hour trip, four hours back and forth, to surrattsville. and she brings with her a package, a package that contained binoculars. these binoculars were to be used for john wilkes booth to prevent his capture. and the guns were used so that john wilkes booth could kill

anyone who was coming after him. and she said to mr. lloyd that day, get the shooting irons ready because someone's going to come today for them. and remember they were hidden in the home. so john wilkes booth had a good reason for them to be ready because that night he would be in a hurry. the greatest hurry of his life. he would be running for his life. was it a coincidence that john wilkes booth on april 14th came to miss surratt's home and spoke to her in private? did he have time that day, april 14th, for small talk? now, the defense may attack the government's witnesses mr. lloyd and mr. weichman, but prior -- because they have.

but prior to this trial, prior to these events, miss surratt did not mistrust them. miss surratt relied upon them, relied upon john lloyd, relied upon lewis weichman. lewis weichman was her friend, was one of her son's best friends. and if he was sober enough to fix her carriage and he was sober enough -- >> objection. lewis weichman didn't fix anyone's carriage. >> excuse me. if john lloyd was sober enough to fix her carriage and sober enough to follow her directions with the binoculars and guns, he was sober enough to testify in this case. let's turn one more time to april 17th, the most important day in the investigation. by the time of the investigation, mary surratt and the world knew, by april 17th, that john wilkes booth had murdered president lincoln. yet in mary surratt's home they found a photograph of john wies