Deadly Tornadoes Slam Into Alabama

The Associated Press reported this morning:

TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — The death toll from severe storms that punished five Southern U.S. states has jumped to 178 after Alabama sharply raised its tally of lives lost.

Alabama’s state emergency management agency said early Thursday it had confirmed 128 deaths, up from at least 61 earlier.

Mississippi officials reported 32 dead in that state and Tennessee raised its report to six from one.

Another 11 have been killed in Georgia and one in Virginia.

The fierce storms Wednesday spawned tornadoes and winds that wiped out homes and businesses, forced a nuclear power plant to use backup generators and even prompted the evacuation of a National Weather Service office.

 Milton Friedman on Phil Donahue Show in 1980 provides a direct and to-the-point defense of capitalism and free trade. He explains how governmental regulations, no matter how well-intended, are inevitably infiltrated by business interests which use governmental power to stifle competition

Steve Brawner in his article “Safer roads and balanced budgets,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 13, 2011, noted:

The disagreement is over the solutions — on what spending to cut; what taxes to raise (basically none ever, according to Boozman); whether or not to enact a balanced budget amendment (Boozman says yes; Pryor no); and on what policies would promote the kind of economic growth that would make this a little easier.

In Feb of 1983 Milton Friedman wrote the article “Washington:Less Red Ink (An argument that the balanced-budget amendent would be a rare merging of public and private interests),” and here is a portion of that article:

Here, for their consideration, are my answers to the principal objections to the proposed amendment that I have come across, other than those that arise from a desire to have a still-bigger government: 

**4. The amendment is unduly rigid because it requires an annually balanced budget.** 

This is a misconception. Section 1 of the amendment prohibits a planned budget deficit unless it is explicitly approved by three fifths of the members of the House and Senate. It further requires the Congress and the President to “ensure that actual outlays do not exceed the outlays set forth in [the budget] statement.” But it does not require that actual receipts equal or exceed statement receipts. A deficit that emerged because a recession produced a reduction in tax receipts would not be in violation of the amendment, provided that outlays were no greater than statement outlays. This is a sensible arrangement: outlays can be controlled more readily over short periods than receipts. 

I have never been willing to support an amendment calling for an annually balanced budget. I do support this one, because it has the necessary flexibility.

__________________________________

Kate Middleton awards a medal to a young athlete during a visit to Witton Country Park in Darwen, northwest England, on April 11, 2011.

[ A report by Paul Harrison, royal correspondent Sky Television UK]

Two official photographs of Prince William together with Kate Middleton have been released to mark the couple’s engagement.

The two portraits – one formal, the other informal – were taken by celebrity photographer Mario Testino just days after their engagement was announced.

Testino, a favourite with Royals including the late Diana, Princess of Wales, has described how happy he found the couple to be.

“I am very happy to have been asked to cover this historic moment that the whole world was waiting for,” he said.

“They are in their prime and brimming with happiness – I have never felt so much joy as when I see them together.”

William asked Mario Testino to take these photographs because he loved the way he was able to bring out the exuberance and warmth of Diana in the photos he took just weeks before she died

The photographs – both taken at St James’ Palace – show the two sides of the soon-to-wed future King and Queen.

The formal shot, taken against a backdrop of paintings of former monarchs in the Palace’s Council Chamber, sees the couple in a half-embrace.

The Prince’s fiancee rests her hand on her husband-to-be’s arm, showing off her engagement ring, which once belonged to William’s mother, Diana.

The sapphire is given maximum exposure in the relaxed pose too, taken in the Palace’s Cornwall room.

Clearly at ease, heads touching, a casually dressed Prince William envelopes his future bride in his arms – while her hand rests on his chest.

It is a photo which will become one of the iconic images of the 21 century, chosen from several sent to Clarence house by the famous photographer.

Royal writer and photographer Ian Lloyd believes the couple chose Mario Testino because of his ability to make his subjects come alive, as he did with Diana.

“William asked Mario Testino to take these photographs because he loved the way he was able to bring out the exuberance and warmth of Diana in the photos he took just weeks before she died,” Mr Lloyd explained.

“And you can see he’s managed to bring that out in the Prince and his financee too.”

In both photos Kate is wearing items bought from high street stores: A white dress from Reiss and a cream blouse from Whistles.

Just as her blue dress sold old within days of wearing it on the day their engagement was announced, observers expect little different from her latest choices.

But the item people really want to know about is the dress she’ll be wearing on April 29th.

___________________________________

Kate Middleton arrives with fiance Prince William (not pictured) at the official opening of Darwen Aldridge Community Academy on April 11, 2011, in Darwen, northwest England.

As the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton nears, Mark Phillips reports on some of the chosen few who will attend the royal ceremony at Westminster Abbey.

Milton Friedman on Phil Donahue Show in 1980 provides a direct and to-the-point defense of capitalism and free trade. He explains how governmental regulations, no matter how well-intended, are inevitably infiltrated by business interests which use governmental power to stifle competition.

Steve Brawner in his article “Safer roads and balanced budgets,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 13, 2011, noted:

The disagreement is over the solutions — on what spending to cut; what taxes to raise (basically none ever, according to Boozman); whether or not to enact a balanced budget amendment (Boozman says yes; Pryor no); and on what policies would promote the kind of economic growth that would make this a little easier.

In Feb of 1983 Milton Friedman wrote the article “Washington:Less Red Ink (An argument that the balanced-budget amendent would be a rare merging of public and private interests),” and here is a portion of that article:

Here, for their consideration, are my answers to the principal objections to the proposed amendment that I have come across, other than those that arise from a desire to have a still-bigger government: 

**3. The amendment is substantive, not procedural and the Constitution should be limited to procedural matters. The fate of the Prohibition amendment is a cautionary tale that should give us pause in enacting substantive amendments.** 

If this amendment is substantive, so is the income-tax (sixteenth) amendment and so are many specific provisions of the Constitution. The income-tax amendment does not specify the rate of tax. It leaves that to Congress. Similarly, this amendment does not specify the size of the budget. It simply outlines a procedure for approving it: the same as now exists if total legislated outlays do not exceed an amount determined by prior events (the prior budget and the prior growth in national income); and by a majority of 60 percent if total legislated outlays do exceed that amount. The requirement of a supernormal majority is neither substantive nor undemocratic nor unprecedented. Witness the two-thirds majority necessary to override a presidential veto or to approve a treaty. 

The prohibition amendment was incompatible with the basic aim of the Constitution, because it was not directed at limiting government. On the contrary, it limited the people and freed government to control them. The balanced-budget-tax-limitation amendment is thoroughly compatible with the basic role of the Constitution, because it seeks to improve the ability of the public to limit government.

____________________________________

Lady Diana and Prince Charles.

 Milton Friedman on Phil Donahue Show in 1980 provides a direct and to-the-point defense of capitalism and free trade. He explains how governmental regulations, no matter how well-intended, are inevitably infiltrated by business interests which use governmental power to stifle competition.

Steve Brawner in his article “Safer roads and balanced budgets,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 13, 2011, noted:

The disagreement is over the solutions — on what spending to cut; what taxes to raise (basically none ever, according to Boozman); whether or not to enact a balanced budget amendment (Boozman says yes; Pryor no); and on what policies would promote the kind of economic growth that would make this a little easier.

In Feb of 1983 Milton Friedman wrote the article “Washington:Less Red Ink (An argument that the balanced-budget amendent would be a rare merging of public and private interests),” and here is a portion of that article:

Here, for their consideration, are my answers to the principal objections to the proposed amendment that I have come across, other than those that arise from a desire to have a still-bigger government: 

**1. The amendment is unnecessary. Congress and the President have the power to limit spending and balance the budget.** 

Taken seriously, this is an argument for scrapping most of the Constitution. Congress and the President have the power to preserve freedom of the press and of speech without the First Amendment. Does that make the First Amendment unnecessary? Not surprisingly, I know of no one who has criticized the balanced-budget amendment as unnecessary–however caustic his comments on congressional hypocrisy–who would draw the conclusion that the First Amendment should be scrapped. 

It is essential to look not only at the power of Congress but at the incentives of its members–to act in such a way as to be re-elected. As Phil Gramm, a Democratic congressman from Texas, has said: Every time you vote on every issue, all the people who want the program are looking over your right shoulder and nobody’s looking over your left shoulder….In being fiscally responsible under such circumstances, we’re asking more of people than the Lord asks.” 

Under present arrangements, Congress will not in fact balance the budget. Similarly, a President will not produce a balanced budget by using the kind of vetoes that would be required. The function of the amendment is to remedy the defect in our legislative procedure that distorts the will of the people as it is filtered through their representatives. The amendment process is the only effective way the public can treat the budget as a whole. That is the function of the First Amendment, as well–it treats free speech as a bundle. In its absence, Congress would consider each case “on its merits.” It is not hard to envisage the way unpopular groups and views would fare.

__________________________________________-

Kate and Prince William interview Part 1

I had the opportunity to travel in 1981  and visit 20 European countries and the last country I visited was England. I left England just a few days before the royal wedding. Some of the people on the same tour that I went on actually made plans to attend the royal wedding. Below is a clip from the 1981 Royal wedding.

Part 1

The Royal Wedding. St. Paul’s Cathedral, 29th July 1981. Commentary by the late Tom Fleming. Divided into 8 parts, this very rare recording was made on a domestic video recorder from the live BBC broadcast. As this was a formal State occasion, funded by the British tax-payer and the broadcast paid for by British Television Licence holders, then there is a powerful moral argument that this recording of mine should belong in the public domain.
(I only wrote the above preamble because some commercial enterprise has claimed copyright infringement on my video which I find outrageous under these special circumstances)

This recording was made using Memorex VHS video cassettes at a time when domestic VCR’s were very few and far between in the U.K. Considering the age of these recordings and their linear Mono soundtracks; I think they have stood up rather well. Blank video cassettes were hideously expensive at the time but I am so glad that my original investment has paid off today now that I can share this long past national event with the whole wide world

Dallas Fed president and CEO Richard W. Fisher sat down with economist Milton Friedman on October 19, 2005, as part of ongoing discussions with the Nobel Prize winner. In this clip, Friedman argues for a reduction in government spending.

I really wish that Senator Pryor would see the wisdom of supporting the Balanced Budget amendment. If he did then I think his chances of getting re-elected in Arkansas would rise considerably. What are the chances that Senator Pryor will be re-elected? They have greatly improved from 2% to about 40% since he now appears willing to work on the most serious out of control spending problem our federal government has ever had. See a post that I did yesterday concerning Pryor’s recent speech at the Political Animals’ Club in Little Rock.

Steve Brawner in his article “Safer roads and balanced budgets,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 13, 2011, noted:

The disagreement is over the solutions — on what spending to cut; what taxes to raise (basically none ever, according to Boozman); whether or not to enact a balanced budget amendment (Boozman says yes; Pryor no); and on what policies would promote the kind of economic growth that would make this a little easier.

Steve Brawner in his article “Senators differ on constitutional change,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 20, 2011 noted:

Now the government is running annual deficits in the $1.5 trillion range – much of it financed by foreign entities such as the Chinese government.

Meanwhile, Boozman and others can point to a state like Arkansas, where the Revenue Stabilization Act, the statutory equivalent of a balanced budget amendment, has helped the state remain relatively debt-free.

But opponents of the idea have compelling arguments of their own, starting with the fact that there are times when the government shouldn’t balance its budget. During World War II, for example, big annual deficits caused the national debt to reach 122 percent of gross domestic product, its highest percentage ever, but those deficits financed victory in Europe and the Pacific. Moreover, sometimes excess government spending can help keep a recession from becoming much worse.

Any balanced budget amendment therefore would include a clause allowing deficit spending under certain conditions. That would be a big – and often abused – loophole.

Opponents of a balanced budget amendment have other arguments on their side. One is that elected officials simply would work around it — by declaring certain expenditures “off budget,” for example.

Another is that the amendment would add a third branch of government, the judiciary, to a process that is messy enough involving two. Constitutionally requiring a balanced budget would open up each year’s spending decisions to all kinds of lawsuits, meaning that judges, many of them unelected, would be making the ultimate decisions about how tax dollars are spent.

In Feb of 1983 Milton Friedman wrote the article “Washington:Less Red Ink (An argument that the balanced-budget amendent would be a rare merging of public and private interests),” and here is a portion of that article:

Two national organizations have led this drive: the National Tax Limitation Committee (NTLC), founded in 1975 as a single-issue, nonpartisan organization to serve as a clearinghouse for information on attempts to limit taxes at a local, state, or federal level, and to assist such attempts; and the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), which led the drive to persuade state legislatures to pass resolutions calling for a constitutional convention to enact an amendment requiring the federal government to balance its budget. Thirty-one states have already passed resolutions calling for a convention. If three more pass similar resolutions, the Constitution requires Congress to call such a convention–a major reason Congress has been active in producing its own amendment. 

The amendment that was passed by the Senate last August 4, by a vote of 69 to 31 (two more than the two thirds required for approval of a constitutional amendment), had its origin in 1973 in a California proposition that failed at the time but passed in 1979 in improved form (not Proposition 13). A drafting committee organized by the NTLC produced a draft amendment applicable to the federal government in late 1978. The NTU contributed its own version. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a final version on May 19, 1981, after lengthy hearings and with the cooperation of all the major contributors to the earlier work. In my opinion, the committee’s final version was better than any earlier draft. That version was adopted by the Senate except for the addition of section 6, proposed by Senator William Armstrong, of Colorado, a Republican. Approval by the Senate, like the sponsorship of the amendment, was bipartisan: forty-seven Republicans, twenty-one Democrats, and one Independent voted for the amendment. 

The House Democratic leadership tried to prevent a vote on the amendment in the House before last November’s elections. However, a discharge petition forced a vote on it on October 1, the last full day of the regular session. The amendment was approved by a majority (236 to 187), but not by the necessary two thirds. Again, the majority was bipartisan: 167 Republicans, 69 Democrats. In view of its near passage and the widespread public support for it, the amendment is sure to be reintroduced in the current session of Congress. Hence it remains a very live issue. 

The amendment as adopted by the Senate would achieve two related objectives: first, it would increase the likelihood that the federal budget would be brought into balance, not by prohibiting an unbalanced budget but by making it more difficult to enact a budget calling for a deficit; second, it would check the growth of government spending–again, not by prohibiting such growth but by making it more difficult.

Robert Redford brings his new film to the Toronto International Film Festival 2010, a film about a female charged as a co-conspirator in the assassination trial of Abraham Lincoln. As the whole nation turns against her, she is forced to rely on her reluctant lawyer to uncover the truth and save her life.

I love the movie “The Conspirator” and I wanted to take a closer look at the people involved.

LEWIS POWELL

From the left: Lewis with his mother when he was 2; Lewis at age 12; Lewis at age 16; Lewis after his arrest (age 20, almost 21)

Lewis Thornton Powell (also known as Lewis Paine or Lewis Payne) was born April 22, 1844, in Randolph County, Alabama. Powell had eight brothers and sisters, and his father, George, was a Baptist preacher and missionary. As Lewis grew up, his siblings called him “Doc.” At age 12 he was kicked by a mule while playing in his back yard (resulting in a broken jaw and missing molar). This injury led to the left side of his jaw being more prominent than the right, a fact noted by medical personnel who examined him during the conspiracy trial. It is likely young Lewis was educated by his parents at home. When he was 15, the family moved to a farm near Live Oak, Florida. Pictured to the left is the Reverend George C. Powell, Lewis’s father.In 1861, when news of the Civil War’s outbreak reached Live Oak, Powell volunteered as a soldier for the Confederacy. On May 30, 1861, he was accepted for enlistment as a private. His father said this was the last time he ever saw Lewis. According to William E. Doster, Powell’s attorney at the conspiracy trial, while stationed in Richmond Powell attended a play and was particularly impressed by one of the actors.  The actor’s name was John Wilkes Booth. After the play, Powell introduced himself to Booth. An immediate friendship resulted. (This account of the initial meeting is very doubtful according to Betty Ownsbey in her book on Powell. It seems Booth’s stage engagements in Richmond ended in May, 1860.)

Powell fought in the Battle of Gettysburg and was shot in the right wrist and taken prisoner. Later he was transferred to the United States Army Hospital in Baltimore. Powell escaped and enlisted in Col. John Singleton Mosby’s Virginia cavalry in the fall of 1863. He was a very apt Ranger. Eventually, Powell departed from Mosby’s cavalry and took the Oath of Allegiance to the Union on January 13, 1865. (This document described Powell as being 6 feet 1 1/2 inches tall with black hair and blue eyes.) Lewis then went to live in Baltimore. He boarded at the Branson boardinghouse which was being used as a front by those involved in Confederate espionage.At some time Powell, probably through John Surratt, met with John Wilkes Booth. Dr. Samuel Mudd had previously introduced Surratt, a Confederate courier, to Booth. Booth saw Powell, tall and powerfully built, as an ideal and well-qualified co-conspirator in his plan to kidnap Abraham Lincoln. Powell was adept in the use of firearms. Booth took Powell “under his wing.”In late February of 1865 Powell showed up at Mary Surratt’s Washington boardinghouse using the alias “Reverend Wood.” On the night of March 15, 1865, Powell met with Booth and other conspirators at Gautier’s Restaurant on Pennsylvania Avenue to discuss the possible abduction of the president.

On Friday, March 17, 1865, Powell, Booth and other conspirators planned to kidnap President Lincoln as he rode in his carriage to attend a play at the Campbell Hospital located just outside Washington, D.C. The kidnap plot failed as Lincoln never arrived in his carriage. ** The president had remained in Washington. At about 4:00 P.M., standing on the balcony of the National Hotel, he spoke to the 140th Indiana Regiment and presented a captured flag to Indiana’s governor. The National Hotel was the same hotel where JWB stayed. On April 14, 1865, after Booth heard of Lincoln’s plan to attend Ford’s Theatre, the conspirators held one final meeting. This was possibly in Powell’s rented room at the Herndon House. However, it could well have been at another location most likely at another location as Powell had checked out during the mid-afternoon. Booth assigned Powell to kill Secretary of State William Seward that night at approximately 10:15 P.M. to coincide with Booth’s attack at Ford’s Theatre. David Herold would accompany Powell. Another conspirator, George Atzerodt, was supposed to assassinate Vice-President Andrew Johnson at the Kirkwood House.

Shortly after 10:00 P.M. that evening, Powell and David Herold arrived at the Seward home, the Old Club House (pictured to the left; source of picture: United States Naval Historical Center; the building was torn down in 1895 and is now the site of the Court of Claims Building), located in Lafayette Park across from the White House. Powell gained entrance to the Secretary’s residence by telling the second waiter, William H. Bell, that he had medicine for Seward from Dr. Tullio Suzzaro Verdi. Seward, 63, was quite ill due to a carriage accident and was confined to his bed in his third floor bedroom. Powell was well armed. He carried an 1858 Whitney revolver which was a large, heavy, and popular gun during the Civil War. Additionally, he carried a huge silver-mounted bowie knife with an alligator motif and the engraving “The Hunter’s Companion – Real Life Defender.” After pistol-whipping Seward’s son, Frederick, Powell attacked the Secretary of State with his knife. He placed his left hand on Seward’s chest and then struck down with his knife several times. One stab wound went entirely through the Secretary’s right cheek. Seward was seriously injured in the attack. In all, Powell injured five people during his wild rampage in the Seward home.

The photograph to the left is a Library of Congress photograph of William Seward before Powell’s attack. To the right is a photograph of William Seward’s disfigured appearance after Powell’s attack. It is a University of Rochester Library photograph. It’s a rare picture in that Seward hardly ever allowed photos to be taken that showed the scarred right side of his face. Source of the University of Rochester Library photograph: p. 98 of the late Dr. John K. Lattimer’s Kennedy and Lincoln: Medical and Ballistic Comparisons of Their Assassinations.

SKETCH OF POWELL’S ATTACK SOURCE: The Assassination and History of the Conspiracy (Cincinnati, J.R. Hawley & Co., 1865)

SEWARD’S MOUTH SPLINT After Powell’s malicious attack a dentist, Dr. Thomas Brian Gunning, designed a mouth splint for William Seward. The splint was intended to keep Seward’s jaw fragments lined up. Seward had to wear the device for several months. (From Dr. John K. Lattimer, et al., Journal of the American Dental Association, January, 1968. Dr. Lattimer included the graphic on p. 101 of his Kennedy and Lincoln: Medical and Ballistic Comparisons of Their Assassinations.)

Powell ran out of the house and hid for three days in a wooded lot about a mile from the Navy Yard Bridge. He took shelter in the branches of a tree. Then, on the night of April 17, 1865, disguised as a laborer, he showed up at Mary Surratt’s home just as she was being placed under arrest. Powell was arrested and taken in for interrogation. Bell, the Secretary of State’s second waiter, identified Powell as Seward’s attacker. WILLIAM BELL IDENTIFIED LEWIS POWELL Source: National Park Service

Mark Levin interviews Senator Hatch 1/27/2011 about the balanced budget amendment. Mark is very excited about the balanced budget amendment being proposed by Senator Orin Hatch and John Cornyn and he discusses the amendment with Senator Hatch. Senator Hatch explains the bill it’s ramifications and limitations. Senator Hatch actually worked on this bill with renowned economist Milton Friedman. This ammendment is the first big step in saving our country.

Steve Brawner in his article “Safer roads and balanced budgets,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 13, 2011, noted:

The disagreement is over the solutions — on what spending to cut; what taxes to raise (basically none ever, according to Boozman); whether or not to enact a balanced budget amendment (Boozman says yes; Pryor no); and on what policies would promote the kind of economic growth that would make this a little easier.

Steve Brawner in his article “Senators differ on constitutional change,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 20, 2011 noted:

Orrin Hatch on proposed Balanced Budget Amendment

Mark Levin had Orrin Hatch on his radio show to talk about the newly proposed Balanced Budget Amendment by himself and John Cornyn. Levin fully supports it and says that it is fundamental to putting us on the right fiscal path. Hatch describes what this newly proposed amendment will actually do:

1. Its mandates that total budgetary outlays for any fiscal year not exceed total revenues unless you have a two thirds vote to overturn it.
2. It caps federal spending at 20% of GDP.
3. It requires the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress every fiscal year.
4. It prohibits revenue raising measures (like increasing taxes) that are not approved by two thirds of both the House and Senate.
5. Provisions can be waived if there is a formal declaration of war or if the US is engaged in a military conflict constituting a threat to national security or if two thirds of both the House and the Senate approve.

There are Republican Senators who want to cap spending at around 17% or 18% but Hatch argues that it likely won’t pass if it’s that low. He believes 20% is a reasonable number that will appeal to the 20 or so Democrats needed to get this through the Senate and into the House. Once it passes there it will go to the states where it will need a three-fourths majority, but Hatch is very optimistic that now is the time for this amendment to pass. He’s been working on getting it passed for over three decades.

Noting the spending cap in the amendment, Mark Levin added this via email:

I would prefer the GDP level set at 17%. But 20% is better than 25% and the other provisions of the amendment are very important as well. I believe we really need to get behind this.

UPDATE: Corrected to say three-fourths instead of two-thirds. Thanks to commenter Irishspy for the correction.

Clip of the new movie of Robert Redford.

Starring: James McAvoy, Robin Wright, Kevin Kline, Evan Rachel Wood, Justin Long, Alexis Bledel, Tom Wilkinson, Danny Huston, Toby Kebbel

The film “The Conspirator” is an excellent film and I have been studying up on Mary Surratt ever since then: (Part B)

The carte-de-visite (left) entitled Morning, Noon, and Night was taken from a mantel at the Surratt boardinghouse during the police search of the premises. On the back of the carte-de-visite, Anna Surratt had hidden a photograph of John Wilkes Booth. An anonymous donor graciously contributed the image of Morning, Noon, and Night to this website. Mary Surratt claimed total innocence. She said she knew nothing of Booth’s plans, and that her trips to Surrattsville had to do with collecting some money she was owed by a man named John Nothey. One thing that looked suspicious about Mrs. Surratt was that she claimed she had never seen Lewis Powell before when he appeared at her boardinghouse on April 17. He had been there many times before the assassination. Was she lying, or was this due to poor eyesight? Mrs. Surratt was tried along with seven men. Her attorneys, Frederick A. Aiken and John W. Clampitt, were inexperienced. In jail Lewis Powell maintained Mrs. Surratt was 100% innocent. However, she was convicted mostly due to the testimony of John Lloyd and Louis Weichmann. These men drew great criticism for their testimony. Nearing age 60 and dying, on June 2, 1902, Weichmann allegedly called to his sisters, asked them to get pen and paper, and told them to write “This is to certify that every word I gave in evidence at the assassination trial was absolutely true; and now I am about to die and with love I recommend myself to all truth-loving people.” However, this statement has never been produced and must presumed to be lost. Also, John Lloyd stuck to his damaging testimony at the 1867 trial of John Surratt. In court Mrs. Surratt was dressed in black, with her head covered in a black bonnet. Her face was mostly hidden behind a veil. The jury voted the death penalty for her but added a recommendation for mercy due to her “sex and age.” The recommendation was that the penalty be changed to life in prison. (** see below **)

Sketch of Mary Surratt during the trial. The sketch appeared on the cover of an 1865 pamphlet titled Trial of the Assassins and Conspirators for the Murder of Abraham Lincoln