+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Assassination (/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: James L. Hoare (/thread-3718.html)
James L. Hoare - SSlater - 05-09-2018 01:36 PM
Has anybody run across a man named JAMES L. HOARE?
I have been working on the Testimony given during the "investigation relative to the complicity of Davis and Clay in the Assassination of Lincoln."
This guy testified that JUDGE HOLT paid him to tell lies, but I can't find more about this guy.
I calculated he was born about 1840 in New York, and spent most of his life there. HELP! HELP!
RE: James L. Hoare - Steve - 05-09-2018 02:31 PM
The man's name was Joseph A. Hoare, not James L. Hoare, and he falsely testified under the alias William Campbell. Here's a link to a book's description of the incident:
https://books.google.com/books?id=DOC3SMl00cgC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=Joseph+Hoare+%22Judge+Holt%22+Lincoln&source=bl&ots=mHWDQ9WFGc&sig=LwkkSO-5Z94OZZ3qWPaIX3pBfdI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjk6ObFrvnaAhXjwVkKHUr4C_IQ6AEIKTAB#v=onepage&q=Joseph%20Hoare%20%22Judge%20Holt%22%20Lincoln&f=false
Here's an image of an article about Hoare's indictment from the first page of the 29 Nov. 1866 edition of the Buffalo Daily Courier:
[attachment=2856]
RE: James L. Hoare - SSlater - 05-09-2018 08:57 PM
Thanks, Steve.
Your reply is exactly what I was looking for. I am not critical of you, but I can't accept ALL that you say. For example. My source for Joseph L. Hoare, it the Court Transcript of the Trial.
I do not believe that he testified as Campbell - since both he and Campbell testified at the same trial. The Court would not allow two men to testify under the same name. An interesting critical plan , started by Holt, was his "payments" were intended to make Davis "Run Away!" from any prosecution. but he didn't run.
I read to the end of your post. It was so well done.
I intend to complete my typing of the trial record. If I stumble onto something interesting, I'll post.
RE: James L. Hoare - Steve - 05-09-2018 11:44 PM
According to a June 2, 1866 report of the Judge Advocate's Office to the House Judiciary Committee, their investigation determined Campbell was one of eight fictitious witnesses:
Sanford Conover
William Campbell
Joseph Snevel
Farnum B. Wright
John H. Patten
Sarah Douglass
John McGill
Mary Knapp
The report listed their true identities, with Campbell's true name as Joseph A. Hoare, a New York born gas-fixer. The report also says the deception came to light when Campbell (Hoare) confessed everything to Col. L. C. Turner on April 29, 1866.
Searching the internet, I've seen Hoare's middle initial as "L" in some books, so I don't know which is correct. Confusingly, the report continues to call Hoare "Campbell", even after identifying him.
Here is a link to the report:
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZwMVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA921&lpg=PA921&dq=
RE: James L. Hoare - RJNorton - 05-10-2018 04:31 AM
In David Dewitt's The Impeachment And Trial of President Andrew Johnson it says:
"Campbell was sworn and testified that his deposition was false in every particular; that his real name was Joseph A. Hoare; that the deposition was written out for him by Conover and he committed it to memory;"
RE: James L. Hoare - John Fazio - 05-10-2018 07:22 AM
Hello Everyone:
My understanding is that Hoare's testimony was part of Charles Dunham's and George Sanders' plot to plant intentional perjury in the trial and before the Boutwell Committee so that when it was exposed as such, the case against the Confederate leadership would collapse, which it did. (Conover, incidentally, was one of about 20 aliases used by Dunham, who was one of the most extraordinary characters in history.)
Permit me to use this forum to introduce another subject that has some current relevance. As you no doubt know, there has been a lot of talk about Mueller issuing a subpoena to President Trump, commanding him to appear before the Special Prosecutor for examination if Trump refuses to appear voluntarily. It has also been widely reported that issuance of the subpoena will precipitate a major legal battle as to the President's obligation to honor the same. It has been said that there is no precedent for this and that the issue would likely go to the Supreme Court. Somewhere, in all my readings about the assassination and the trial of the conspirators , I recall reading that during the trial, President Johnson was issued a subpoena by the War Department (or perhaps by the Commissioners trying the conspirators), commanding him to appear in the trial and give testimony. I recall, further, that he refused to honor the subpoena (presumably because he did not want it to be known that he had known Booth personally, the two having had a relationship of some kind when they were in Tennessee together). Query: Is my recollection correct? Does anyone know anything about this? Can anyone cite a source for the issuance of the subpoena, the refusal of Johnson to honor it and the fact that he suffered no legal consequences as a result of his refusal. Thanks for your help.
John
RE: James L. Hoare - Steve - 05-10-2018 10:03 AM
On March 7, 1868 the Senate issued a summons for President Johnson to appear at his impeachment trial, which Johnson refused. Is that what you're thinking about?
RE: James L. Hoare - John Fazio - 05-10-2018 10:31 AM
(05-10-2018 10:03 AM)Steve Wrote: On March 7, 1868 the Senate issued a summons for President Johnson to appear at his impeachment trial, which Johnson refused. Is that what you're thinking about?
Steve:
Thank you very much for your quick response. I do not believe this is the event I have reference to. My recollection is that Johnson was subpoenaed to appear and give testimony at the trial of the conspirators in May and June of 1865 and that he refused, apparently without consequence, to honor it. It is possible, of course, that my memory is playing tricks on me (that has been known to happen), but I think it unlikely.
Nevertheless, the event you describe may also have some relevance to the current situation between the Special Prosecutor and the President. Please understand that I am not trying to give ammunition to the President; on the contrary, I believe he should submit to questioning by Mueller; I am merely trying to substantiate my belief that there is some precedent relative to the issue.
Thank you again.
John
RE: James L. Hoare - Steve - 05-10-2018 07:20 PM
(05-10-2018 07:22 AM)John Fazio Wrote: Hello Everyone:
My understanding is that Hoare's testimony was part of Charles Dunham's and George Sanders' plot to plant intentional perjury in the trial and before the Boutwell Committee so that when it was exposed as such, the case against the Confederate leadership would collapse, which it did. (Conover, incidentally, was one of about 20 aliases used by Dunham, who was one of the most extraordinary characters in history.)
John,
I checked your book and you cite the 27 May 1865 W.W. Daniels letter to Stanton as evidence of George Sanders' being behind Charles Dunham's fake testimony ring.
For anybody interested, Daniels' letter is here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=GvYpUeuPPrAC&pg=PA415&lpg=PA415&dq=%22W.W.+Daniels%22+Stanton&source=bl&ots=UBc_iW5nwW&sig=lnAaAPzvNiBQN5iv_q14PduRZEI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjSp6aamfzaAhXJuVkKHURGCOwQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=%22W.W.%20Daniels%22%20Stanton&f=false
In the letter, Daniels only says that Sanders told him they would plant testimony to "rebut every particle of testimony implicating him and other parties in the assassination." That doesn't sound anything like Dunham's Conover testimony which tried to implicate the Confederacy in the assassination. Even if it was a ploy by Sanders to discredit the association of the Confederacy with the assassination, why didn't Sanders do that? Although, the veracity of "Conover's" testimony was questioned at the time, it was the Judge Advocate's Office that exposed Dunham following Hoare's confession in April 1866. And it was Gen. Holt himself that ordered the sting that gathered further evidence against Dunham and turned the information over to the House Judiciary Committee.
If Sanders was behind "Conover", he could have easily discredited the trial by leaking Dunham's identity to the press. Also when "Conover's" testimony was challenged in the press, Dunham had his brother-in-law and law partner, Nathan Auser testify at the trial under his own name that he knew "Conover" for years to help establish Conover's reliability. That doesn't seem like something Sanders would do if he was trying to discredit the trial.
The Daniels letter, though, does describe Dr. Augustus Bissell's testimony saying John Surratt was in Elmira on April 14, 1865 during the Surratt trial. Bissell's later criminal history, including perjury, would be consistent with giving false testimony for money.
Since it was mentioned earlier, I think I should also point out that I think it makes no sense to believe Holt was aware of Dunham fabricating "Conover's" testimony during the trial, since the Judge Advocate's Office was so involved in Dunham's exposure.
RE: James L. Hoare - SSlater - 05-10-2018 10:38 PM
What a disappointment! I worked weeks , spent cash, gave up some sleep.- to research the "Judiciary Committee". I have pages of testimony, lists of witnesses, etc.
Then I asked this Symposium for help. You guys put me onto the REAL SEARCH -which shot holes in all I had done. For which I am Grateful. THE WHOLE THING IS A LIE.
When I start a new project, I won't wait so long to get your comments. Thanks everybody SSlater