(01-17-2018 10:11 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 03:11 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 09:00 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  Remember, Smoot said she told him the boat would be used that night. Was it a lie or evidence that she didn't know the plot had changed? Impossible to know for certain.

Jerry:

Those who continue to talk about the plot changing are "missing the boat". It is not necessary for Lincoln to be in the boat for it to be used that night. Recall that three assassins were to make their way across the river and that two actually did. If you stop thinking about a changed plot, you will get closer to the truth. Remember that the Holcombe, Clay and Thompson meetings with Dr. Luke Pryor Blackburn and Godfrey Hyams in Canada prove that the post Wistar and Dahlgren-Kilpatrick Confederate leadership was trying to murder Lincoln as early as the summer of 1864. Recall, too, Surratt's admission to Ste. Marie in Italy, namely "We killed Lincoln, the n____r's friend". (My emphasis.) Recall, also, that Surratt was Benjamin's official courier, meeting with him almost weekly in Richmond, per Ste. Marie. Recall, also, that Booth met Harbin before and after the assassination, after which Harbin left the country for 5 years, and that upon his return, he admitted, in his writings, that he reported directly to Davis. How much evidence do you need?

See pp. 60-68 of my book for the evidence that sent Mrs. Surratt to the gallows.

As for Surratt's whereabouts on April 14, it is still a mystery, but see pp. 45-48 of the book for evidence that he was in Washington.

John

---

(01-16-2018 10:29 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Yes, the accusations against her seem ill-founded. She seems to have seen John Surratt only briefly, on the evening of his return from Richmond.

Susan:

My information is that Susan Jackson stated that while she feigned sleep on the floor of the boardinghouse, she overheard three men, who had come to the house late on the night of the assassination, tell Mrs. Surratt that her son had been in the theater that night with Booth. What evidence do you have that she actually saw John Surratt in Washington? See p. 544 of The Lincoln Assassination (Edwards and Steers, Jr.). See also p. 46 of Decapitating the Union.

John

See her testimony at John Surratt's trial (volume 1, 163-64) about her seeing John, and Nora Fitzpatrick's (volume 1, 720-21) describing John's actions on the night he returned from Richmond and noting Susan's presence.

(01-17-2018 12:33 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 11:23 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Jerry:

If the purpose of the Booth conspiracy was never really kidnapping, and that fact was known to its leaders, i.e. Booth, Surratt and Powell, then it was almost certainly known to its enablers, i.e. Mrs. Surratt
John

John,
No need to rub my nose into your book. I do not question the evidence you have found. I'm pointing out that there is no evidence that Mrs. Suratt knew of the murder. You can't just restate your evidence and then say " it was almost certainly known to its enablers, i.e. Mrs. Surratt".

"Almost certain" means "not certain" councilor, and I agree with that.

(01-18-2018 05:29 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  My information is that Susan Jackson stated that while she feigned sleep on the floor of the boardinghouse, she overheard three men, who had come to the house late on the night of the assassination, tell Mrs. Surratt that her son had been in the theater that night with Booth.

John

(01-18-2018 05:29 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Jerry:

If there were no evidence that Mrs. Surratt knew of the murder, she would not have been convicted. Defendants are not convicted when there is no evidence against them.
John

(01-18-2018 09:44 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 05:29 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  My information is that Susan Jackson stated that while she feigned sleep on the floor of the boardinghouse, she overheard three men, who had come to the house late on the night of the assassination, tell Mrs. Surratt that her son had been in the theater that night with Booth.

John

John, as I understand it, authors such as Bettie Trindal and Kate Larson feel what Susan Jackson said was in error, and that Susan Jackson was confused. Do you feel her statement should be taken more seriously?

(01-18-2018 09:51 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  There was no direct evidence and doubt was not only reasonable but overwhelming.

(01-18-2018 09:31 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Did running a safehouse for Confederate agents during the war constitute guilt of assassination? If so, thank heaven the government did not round up everyone in Southern Maryland and the Northern Neck of Virginia who appeared guilty of doing so. Our population would have been sadly depleted down here!

As most of you know, I am not a defender of Mary Surratt (even though I run the Surratt House Museum), and I understand the government's position (sort of); however, it seems that a cursory glance at the evidence against her speaks more of "circumstantial," at least by our modern standards. Or, have I been watching too much Law and Order?

P.S. He was never questioned, but if he had been, my great-grandfather would likely have told the authorities that he had heard Mrs. Surratt offer money to anyone who would kill Lincoln. This happened in our village of T.B. near the end of the war. Would that be classified as hearsay today?

(01-18-2018 09:57 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 09:51 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  There was no direct evidence and doubt was not only reasonable but overwhelming.

John Lloyd testified Mary "told me to have those shooting-irons ready that night, there would be some parties who would call for them."

Is that not direct evidence? (I am not a lawyer - I am being sincere when I ask)

(01-18-2018 03:12 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 09:57 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 09:51 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  There was no direct evidence and doubt was not only reasonable but overwhelming.

John Lloyd testified Mary "told me to have those shooting-irons ready that night, there would be some parties who would call for them."

Is that not direct evidence? (I am not a lawyer - I am being sincere when I ask)

No, that would be called hearsay.

(01-18-2018 09:54 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 09:44 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 05:29 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  My information is that Susan Jackson stated that while she feigned sleep on the floor of the boardinghouse, she overheard three men, who had come to the house late on the night of the assassination, tell Mrs. Surratt that her son had been in the theater that night with Booth.

John

John, as I understand it, authors such as Bettie Trindal and Kate Larson feel what Susan Jackson said was in error, and that Susan Jackson was confused. Do you feel her statement should be taken more seriously?

Susan herself gave a different version at John Surratt's trial of her encounter with the three men; IIRC, she made clear all three were law enforcement and not conspirators. I'm off to work (which means moving across the room), but I'll look it up later.

(01-18-2018 07:35 PM)L Verge Wrote:  "Why would your grandfather have done that?" Not sure what you mean by that question.

All I can tell you, John, is that my grandmother, Laura Huntt (b. 1874), told me that the family story was that Mrs. Surratt was known to them and that she visited T.B.'s blacksmith shop after the one in Surrattsville closed down (probably because of her husband's death and debts). Great-grandpa said that Mrs Surratt was not the "proper" lady and would rant and rave about the black-hearted Lincoln and offer money to anyone who would kill him. He was never questioned by troops except to be asked if he had heard riders during the night - and he had - but the troops never told him what had happened. John Chandler Thompon, who ran the T.B. Hotel (tavern) across the field was the one that relayed the news. Thompson did testify at the trial about Herold's March 17 stay at his hotel, however.

Mr. Huntt also said that he offered condolences to Mrs. Surratt's younger brother after the execution and that James Archibald Jenkins pretty much scoffed it off and declared that his sister knew exactly what she was doing and deserved what she got.

I should also mention that Mr. Huntt did not own any slaves. He married a Methodist abolitionist from the Eastern Shore of Maryland in 1860, and they were living briefly in Baltimore City during the April riots there in 1861. However, his father and brothers still owned slaves on the family plantation about three miles from T.B.; and my great-great-grandfather impoverished himself paying bounties to keep his sons out of the war. He would not have his sons fighting for the Union - especially after Lincoln had, at first, promised that Marylanders would not have to take up arms against the South if the state remained in the Union. Then came the drafts...

(01-29-2018 05:41 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Steve has been researching Dr. Bissell, a defense witness in the John Surratt trial. He sent me numerous newspaper articles about Bissell. I am going to post the articles, and Steve will be doing a follow-up to discuss where he found the articles and their possible meaning.