Frederick Demond

[Dave Taylor]

(08-07-2015 02:08 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Dave:

Here's a little wisdom from a bright fellow who, regrettably, did not live very long:

In all unimportant matters, style, not sincerity, is the essential. In all important matters, style, not sincerity, is the essential.

Oscar Wilde

My ungracious response was occasioned by your ungracious response to a gracious one.

As for the merits, I grant that there are troubling inconsistencies in Demond's accounts. But observe that in all four scenarios, there is one constant. The four scenarios are: 1) Demond says nothing about receiving an order re a password and countersign; 2) He says they had no order re a password, etc.; 3) He says they did have an order and it came from Cobb; and 4) He says they did have an order and it came from Dana. The one constant in all four scenarios is that something is said about T.B. and T.B. Road. I conclude, therefore, that something was indeed said about T.B. and T.B. Road that night by at least Booth and most probably Herold too. The circumstances surrounding the use of the terms cannot be known with certainty, because we have only Demond's accounts and they are inconsistent. But the use of the terms in some context must be regarded, from the evidence, as a near certainty.

In my opinion, the inconsistencies most likely arise from the fact that the accounts are given so long after the facts rather than from a desire to please Finis Bates. As a good example of this, consider the completely ridiculous statement that Booth and Herold crossed at the same time and announced, as they were crossing, that the President had been shot. On the other hand, there are many telltale signs in the accounts of an honest effort being made by Demond to recall the truth, such as his statement that the Maryland detail thought it strange to receive the order, because they had never previously received an order re passwords, much less this particular password, because the Maryland side guards had nothing to say about passage once the rider had been cleared on the Washington side, and such as his statement that one of the detail (Drake?) remarked, after passage of the fugitives, "It is strange what is going on tonight". There are still other signs, such as his expressions of uncertainty and failure of memory and such as his categorical denial of Dana's statement that he had ordered the removal of all the guards from the bridge before the assassination and their relocation to his headquarters at Ft. Baker.

Further, I maintain (and so state in the book; see Chapter 24) that the fugitives would not have approached the bridge unless they were absolutely certain of passage. They would not, because they could not, leave the matter of passage, even in the slightest degree, to chance. Accordingly, I accept the password thesis if for no reason other than the fact that nothing would have guaranteed passage with greater certainty than the requirement of a password and countersign and the knowledge and use of the same by the passing riders. This is circumstantial evidence of a very powerful kind, which, coupled with Demond's constant, leads me to my conclusion.

I will add, in closing, that because of Demond's inconsistencies, and also because his account of the apprehension, detention and release of Booth and Herold is difficult (though not impossible) to square with other accounts we have of their movements on the 14th, the matter of their passage is one about which reasonable minds can differ. It should therefore not be an occasion for acrimony and recrimination. For that reason, I offer you a truce.

John

John,

You opened your response to me with a quote by Oscar Wilde stating that in essentially all matters, style, not sincerity, is essential. In your closing you admit that this topic is one "about which reasonable minds can differ." I agree with you and contend that the reason we differ on this, and so many other matters, is due to the ways in which our styles differ.

I thank you for your response and for your very clear and honest demonstration of how you approach the study of history. I appreciated reading it as it finally gave me insight about you and into a method uniquely different from my own. My process is to discover evidence, judge the reliability of said evidence, and then draw a conclusion from it. Your process is to begin with a conclusion based on your own logical beliefs, seek out any evidence that supports your conclusion, then use said evidence to re-establish and validate your original conclusion. Our two varying styles of studying history is the reason why we do, and will continue to, differ on many aspects relating to the assassination.

Your method has a strength to it that mine does not have. Using your method, you will always be able to sound more convincing because you base your conclusions on logic. It is hard to disprove analytical logic. Based on logic, I agree with you that Booth and Herold, "would not have approached the bridge unless they were absolutely certain of passage." This is a logical deduction to make. If someone is planning to kill the President, wouldn't they make every effort to guarantee safe passage out of the scene of the crime? The answer is a resounding, "Of course, he/she would. That is perfectly logical." You then took this logical conclusion and sought out evidence that would support it. You then found Frederick Demond and his later accounts that support the idea of a password which provided you the needed validation. You now have a perfectly logical argument, with a piece of evidence to support it. The best part is, even if the evidence is questioned by those who doubt its reliability, you still have that perfectly logical conclusion that you started with which will make you still seem convincing and correct.

It's a great system, John, and explains our other contrasting views, such as our views on John Surratt's escape in Veroli, Italy. You logically deduce that the story given by the Papal authorities and John Surratt, himself, (that he leapt into a ravine and landed on a narrow outcropping) is hard to believe. You therefore seek out evidence that will support a different series of events. You then find an account from a man which states that Surratt escaped by crawling down a sewer. This piece of evidence once again validates your logical argument. Even when that evidence is questioned due to it coming years later and several of the details in the evidence not adding up, you still have the supporting crutch of your initial logical conclusion which you can use to dismiss critics.

I envy you, John. Your style of history not only allows you to appear convincing to others, but also allows you to seemingly prove controversial points that I will never be able to prove. Since I start with the evidence, rather than a conclusion, I will always be stymied by possibilities and probabilities instead of the assurances and certainties that your method produces.

Still, I know I could never learn your style of history, John, because the world I know and observe is not a truly logical one. The history I study is filled with impulsive and unpredictable people, with countless instances of coincidence, chance, and luck. I, therefore, will continue to put more faith in evidence that occurred closer to the event. I will continue to be suspicious of sources that change over time. I will be wary of the involvement of third parties with an agenda. But, most of all, I will continue to assess the reliability of evidence before drawing a conclusion, even though doing so will prevent me from seeing the certainties of history that you enjoy.

[Pamela]

Has anyone visited Veroli, Italy to check out that cliff and ledge and get to the bottom (pun intended) of the great Surratt escape leap? It sounds like a great reason, among thousands of others, to visit Italy.

[John Fazio]

[i][i]

(08-07-2015 01:25 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 02:08 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Dave:

Here's a little wisdom from a bright fellow who, regrettably, did not live very long:

In all unimportant matters, style, not sincerity, is the essential. In all important matters, style, not sincerity, is the essential.

Oscar Wilde

My ungracious response was occasioned by your ungracious response to a gracious one.

As for the merits, I grant that there are troubling inconsistencies in Demond's accounts. But observe that in all four scenarios, there is one constant. The four scenarios are: 1) Demond says nothing about receiving an order re a password and countersign; 2) He says they had no order re a password, etc.; 3) He says they did have an order and it came from Cobb; and 4) He says they did have an order and it came from Dana. The one constant in all four scenarios is that something is said about T.B. and T.B. Road. I conclude, therefore, that something was indeed said about T.B. and T.B. Road that night by at least Booth and most probably Herold too. The circumstances surrounding the use of the terms cannot be known with certainty, because we have only Demond's accounts and they are inconsistent. But the use of the terms in some context must be regarded, from the evidence, as a near certainty.

In my opinion, the inconsistencies most likely arise from the fact that the accounts are given so long after the facts rather than from a desire to please Finis Bates. As a good example of this, consider the completely ridiculous statement that Booth and Herold crossed at the same time and announced, as they were crossing, that the President had been shot. On the other hand, there are many telltale signs in the accounts of an honest effort being made by Demond to recall the truth, such as his statement that the Maryland detail thought it strange to receive the order, because they had never previously received an order re passwords, much less this particular password, because the Maryland side guards had nothing to say about passage once the rider had been cleared on the Washington side, and such as his statement that one of the detail (Drake?) remarked, after passage of the fugitives, "It is strange what is going on tonight". There are still other signs, such as his expressions of uncertainty and failure of memory and such as his categorical denial of Dana's statement that he had ordered the removal of all the guards from the bridge before the assassination and their relocation to his headquarters at Ft. Baker.

Further, I maintain (and so state in the book; see Chapter 24) that the fugitives would not have approached the bridge unless they were absolutely certain of passage. They would not, because they could not, leave the matter of passage, even in the slightest degree, to chance. Accordingly, I accept the password thesis if for no reason other than the fact that nothing would have guaranteed passage with greater certainty than the requirement of a password and countersign and the knowledge and use of the same by the passing riders. This is circumstantial evidence of a very powerful kind, which, coupled with Demond's constant, leads me to my conclusion.

I will add, in closing, that because of Demond's inconsistencies, and also because his account of the apprehension, detention and release of Booth and Herold is difficult (though not impossible) to square with other accounts we have of their movements on the 14th, the matter of their passage is one about which reasonable minds can differ. It should therefore not be an occasion for acrimony and recrimination. For that reason, I offer you a truce.

John

John,

You opened your response to me with a quote by Oscar Wilde stating that in essentially all matters, style, not sincerity, is essential. In your closing you admit that this topic is one "about which reasonable minds can differ." I agree with you and contend that the reason we differ on this, and so many other matters, is due to the ways in which our styles differ.

I thank you for your response and for your very clear and honest demonstration of how you approach the study of history. I appreciated reading it as it finally gave me insight about you and into a method uniquely different from my own. My process is to discover evidence, judge the reliability of said evidence, and then draw a conclusion from it. Your process is to begin with a conclusion based on your own logical beliefs, seek out any evidence that supports your conclusion, then use said evidence to re-establish and validate your original conclusion. Our two varying styles of studying history is the reason why we do, and will continue to, differ on many aspects relating to the assassination.

Your method has a strength to it that mine does not have. Using your method, you will always be able to sound more convincing because you base your conclusions on logic. It is hard to disprove analytical logic. Based on logic, I agree with you that Booth and Herold, "would not have approached the bridge unless they were absolutely certain of passage." This is a logical deduction to make. If someone is planning to kill the President, wouldn't they make every effort to guarantee safe passage out of the scene of the crime? The answer is a resounding, "Of course, he/she would. That is perfectly logical." You then took this logical conclusion and sought out evidence that would support it. You then found Frederick Demond and his later accounts that support the idea of a password which provided you the needed validation. You now have a perfectly logical argument, with a piece of evidence to support it. The best part is, even if the evidence is questioned by those who doubt its reliability, you still have that perfectly logical conclusion that you started with which will make you still seem convincing and correct.

It's a great system, John, and explains our other contrasting views, such as our views on John Surratt's escape in Veroli, Italy. You logically deduce that the story given by the Papal authorities and John Surratt, himself, (that he leapt into a ravine and landed on a narrow outcropping) is hard to believe. You therefore seek out evidence that will support a different series of events. You then find an account from a man which states that Surratt escaped by crawling down a sewer. This piece of evidence once again validates your logical argument. Even when that evidence is questioned due to it coming years later and several of the details in the evidence not adding up, you still have the supporting crutch of your initial logical conclusion which you can use to dismiss critics.

I envy you, John. Your style of history not only allows you to appear convincing to others, but also allows you to seemingly prove controversial points that I will never be able to prove. Since I start with the evidence, rather than a conclusion, I will always be stymied by possibilities and probabilities instead of the assurances and certainties that your method produces.

Still, I know I could never learn your style of history, John, because the world I know and observe is not a truly logical one. The history I study is filled with impulsive and unpredictable people, with countless instances of coincidence, chance, and luck. I, therefore, will continue to put more faith in evidence that occurred closer to the event. I will continue to be suspicious of sources that change over time. I will be wary of the involvement of third parties with an agenda. But, most of all, I will continue to assess the reliability of evidence before drawing a conclusion, even though doing so will prevent me from seeing the certainties of history that you enjoy.

Dave:

The style to which I (and Wilde) had reference has nothing to do with our approaches to history, but to communication. One does not generally respond to a salutory message with a venomous one.

Your assertion that there is a fundamental difference in our methodology is a chimera or a red herrring, or perhaps some of both, depending on whether it is borne of ignorance or self-interest. Virtually everyone draws conclusions from evidence, rather than the other way around. I do not begin with conclusions any more than you do. Almost no one does. Conclusions, i.e. belief and faith, are based on evidence, which comes to us constantly (except when we sleep) by way of our senses. Without evidence, there is no belief or faith, only imagination, which is limitless. I gather you haven't read "Decapitating", because if you had you would know that one can hardly turn to a page of it that is not in some way related to the presentation and evaluation of evidence, from which conclusions are sometimes drawn, and sometimes not drawn because the evidence is conflicting or otherwise inconclusive. Examples are superfluous.

Our real differences (as opposed to your fancied one) are nothing more unusual than differences of opinion as to what the evidence most likely shows. You favor Surratt's account of his escape. I don't. To me it is absolutely incredible, and I have already told you why in your July 2 edition of BoothieBarn. Lipman's account is, in my opinion, much more believable. Jampoler agrees with me--Surratt's account is a fish story. Schein agrees with you, hanging his hat on Lipman's erroneous reference to a date--a thread, in my opinion. Reasonable minds, as I have already said, can differ. You discount Demond's material re the crossing. I evaluated the evidence for six different ways the fugitives could have crossed the bridge and rejected five of them, settling on the sixth because it was, to me, the only way that would guarantee passage, and a guarantee was critical. Recall that Mrs. Surratt, pursuant to Booth's instruction, had already instructed Lloyd to have the guns and other items ready for pick-up. Recall, too, Booth's telling Ruggles that he had planned for success. Clearly, he had no doubt he would get across the bridge. With a roiling city behind him and death and most probably torture being the consequences of capture, do you believe he would leave any part of the business of crossing to chance? I don't.

Let me mention, in passing, that I observe that Schein is in fundamental agreement with me as to a general conspiracy of Confederate leaders to decapitate the United States government. Wild Bill and Rick Smith also agree. So do Tidwell, Hall, Gaddy, Hanchett, Current, Sears, Winkler, the Boutwell Report and, if I do not misunderstand her, Laurie. Should you, perhaps, give this issue a little more thought?

John

[L Verge]

(08-08-2015 10:52 AM)Pamela Wrote:  Has anyone visited Veroli, Italy to check out that cliff and ledge and get to the bottom (pun intended) of the great Surratt escape leap? It sounds like a great reason, among thousands of others, to visit Italy.

Michael Schein, author of the 2015 book on John Surratt, Jr.: The Lincoln Assassin Who Got Away, did visit Veroli and took his own photos of the area, including a view looking down on the old barracks/prison, a picture of a cell door, and a very impressive one looking down the steep enbankment near where Surratt is believed to have leapt. Today, he would have landed in the middle of a highway.

Michael also presents some good primary source materials to support Surratt's leap into what could have been abyss.

[Pamela]

(08-08-2015 12:52 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 10:52 AM)Pamela Wrote:  Has anyone visited Veroli, Italy to check out that cliff and ledge and get to the bottom (pun intended) of the great Surratt escape leap? It sounds like a great reason, among thousands of others, to visit Italy.

Michael Schein, author of the 2015 book on John Surratt, Jr.: The Lincoln Assassin Who Got Away, did visit Veroli and took his own photos of the area, including a view looking down on the old barracks/prison, a picture of a cell door, and a very impressive one looking down the steep enbankment near where Surratt is believed to have leapt. Today, he would have landed in the middle of a highway.

Michael also presents some good primary source materials to support Surratt's leap into what could have been abyss.

I should read his book because I agree that the story of Surratt's jump is hard to believe. 35 ft is a deadly height.

[Susan Higginbotham]

(08-08-2015 04:05 PM)Pamela Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 12:52 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 10:52 AM)Pamela Wrote:  Has anyone visited Veroli, Italy to check out that cliff and ledge and get to the bottom (pun intended) of the great Surratt escape leap? It sounds like a great reason, among thousands of others, to visit Italy.

Michael Schein, author of the 2015 book on John Surratt, Jr.: The Lincoln Assassin Who Got Away, did visit Veroli and took his own photos of the area, including a view looking down on the old barracks/prison, a picture of a cell door, and a very impressive one looking down the steep enbankment near where Surratt is believed to have leapt. Today, he would have landed in the middle of a highway.

Michael also presents some good primary source materials to support Surratt's leap into what could have been abyss.

I should read his book because I agree that the story of Surratt's jump is hard to believe. 35 ft is a deadly height.

According to sources cited by Schein, Surratt claimed it was only about 12 feet. A report at the time gave an estimate of 23 feet, and indicated that he landed in a pile of dung, which cushioned his fall.

[L Verge]

(08-08-2015 06:21 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 04:05 PM)Pamela Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 12:52 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 10:52 AM)Pamela Wrote:  Has anyone visited Veroli, Italy to check out that cliff and ledge and get to the bottom (pun intended) of the great Surratt escape leap? It sounds like a great reason, among thousands of others, to visit Italy.

Michael Schein, author of the 2015 book on John Surratt, Jr.: The Lincoln Assassin Who Got Away, did visit Veroli and took his own photos of the area, including a view looking down on the old barracks/prison, a picture of a cell door, and a very impressive one looking down the steep enbankment near where Surratt is believed to have leapt. Today, he would have landed in the middle of a highway.

Michael also presents some good primary source materials to support Surratt's leap into what could have been abyss.

I should read his book because I agree that the story of Surratt's jump is hard to believe. 35 ft is a deadly height.

According to sources cited by Schein, Surratt claimed it was only about 12 feet. A report at the time gave an estimate of 23 feet, and indicated that he landed in a pile of dung, which cushioned his fall.

Mike Kauffman also supported the leap and the landing into filth, which cushioned his fall. Surratt wrenched his back and damaged his shoulder in the landing despite it being somewhat cushioned. Mike used to joke about Surratt's scent being easy to pick up by his pursuers.

[Rick Smith]

A very enjoyable read is Fr. Alfred Isaacson's book on John H. Surratt.

He speaks of Surratt's injuries from the jump and his visit to a doctor during his escape.

[L Verge]

(08-08-2015 07:38 PM)Rick Smith Wrote:  A very enjoyable read is Fr. Alfred Isaacson's book on John H. Surratt.

He speaks of Surratt's injuries from the jump and his visit to a doctor during his escape.

Agreed. Fr. Isacsson was just about the first historian to take an interest in the John Surratt story. I believe that he learned of it through Msgr. McAdams, who was friends with the Surratts. Fr. Isacsson traveled to the Vatican to research in their Archives.

[Pamela]

In the Hanson Hiss interview Surratt said the drop was 35 ft to a ledge 4 ft wide. I doubt he took measurements, though.

[Dave Taylor]

(08-08-2015 10:57 PM)Pamela Wrote:  In the Hanson Hiss interview Surratt said the drop was 35 ft to a ledge 4 ft wide. I doubt he took measurements, though.

For what it's worth, author Micheal Schein and researcher James O. Hall believed the entire Hanson Hiss interview to be a fraud.

[Gene C]

(08-09-2015 07:35 AM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  For what it's worth, author Micheal Schein and researcher James O. Hall believed the entire Hanson Hiss interview to be a fraud.

In what way?
Did the interview never happen?

[Dave Taylor]

(08-09-2015 08:18 AM)Gene C Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 07:35 AM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  For what it's worth, author Micheal Schein and researcher James O. Hall believed the entire Hanson Hiss interview to be a fraud.

In what way?
Did the interview never happen?

Gene,

Hall, Schein, and two Surratt researchers names James E. T. Lange and Katherine DeWitt, Jr. put forward a few pieces of evidence that cast doubt on the Hanson Hiss article being a genuine interview. They all seem to take the stance that Hanson Hiss did a great deal of research on John Surratt and then fabricated a so called interview to make his research seem as if it came straight from the horse's mouth.

Lange and DeWitt published an article in the November of 1994 Surratt Courier noting the inconsistencies in the Hanson Hiss article and the true details of John Surratt's life. Some inconsistencies are great such as the Hanson Hiss article claiming that Surratt decided to stop running, signed his real name at a hotel in Alexandria, and was arrested at the hotel while causally smoking a cigar. In truth, Surratt was identified while stuck in quarantine after his boat docked in Alexandria and was arrested then. Other inconsistencies are minor, grant you, but are ones that the real McCoy wouldn't have erred upon (such as his age in 1898).

In addition, Lange and DeWitt point to a telling piece of evidence contained in the 1909 book The Death of Lincoln: The Story of Booth's Plot, His Deed and the Penalty by Clara Laughlin. Laughlin was a friend of John Surratt's daughter and said that everything credited to John Surratt aside from the text of his Rockville lecture of 1870 was a fraud. She states, "Every now and then an alleged newspaper interview with him appears; they are all fabrications — he has never been interviewed."

James O. Hall believed the Hanson Hiss article to be fake as well due to John Surratt's well known aversion to the public eye after his trial and failed lecturing career brought him more bad than good. This also is likely why Surratt made no move to discredit the article after it was published, according to Hall, because refuting it would still bring Surratt unwanted attention. Others attacked some of the points in the Hanson Hiss article, such as A. C. Richards who vehemently denied "Surratt's" statement that a noose was placed around Weichmann's throat to get him to betray Mrs. Surratt.

[John Fazio]

(08-09-2015 09:07 AM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 08:18 AM)Gene C Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 07:35 AM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  For what it's worth, author Micheal Schein and researcher James O. Hall believed the entire Hanson Hiss interview to be a fraud.

In what way?
Did the interview never happen?

Gene,

Hall, Schein, and two Surratt researchers names James E. T. Lange and Katherine DeWitt, Jr. put forward a few pieces of evidence that cast doubt on the Hanson Hiss article being a genuine interview. They all seem to take the stance that Hanson Hiss did a great deal of research on John Surratt and then fabricated a so called interview to make his research seem as if it came straight from the horse's mouth.

Lange and DeWitt published an article in the November of 1994 Surratt Courier noting the inconsistencies in the Hanson Hiss article and the true details of John Surratt's life. Some inconsistencies are great such as the Hanson Hiss article claiming that Surratt decided to stop running, signed his real name at a hotel in Alexandria, and was arrested at the hotel while causally smoking a cigar. In truth, Surratt was identified while stuck in quarantine after his boat docked in Alexandria and was arrested then. Other inconsistencies are minor, grant you, but are ones that the real McCoy wouldn't have erred upon (such as his age in 1898).

In addition, Lange and DeWitt point to a telling piece of evidence contained in the 1909 book The Death of Lincoln: The Story of Booth's Plot, His Deed and the Penalty by Clara Laughlin. Laughlin was a friend of John Surratt's daughter and said that everything credited to John Surratt aside from the text of his Rockville lecture of 1870 was a fraud. She states, "Every now and then an alleged newspaper interview with him appears; they are all fabrications — he has never been interviewed."

James O. Hall believed the Hanson Hiss article to be fake as well due to John Surratt's well known aversion to the public eye after his trial and failed lecturing career brought him more bad than good. This also is likely why Surratt made no move to discredit the article after it was published, according to Hall, because refuting it would still bring Surratt unwanted attention. Others attacked some of the points in the Hanson Hiss article, such as A. C. Richards who vehemently denied "Surratt's" statement that a noose was placed around Weichmann's throat to get him to betray Mrs. Surratt.

Dave, Gene, Pamela, Rick, Laurie (have I left anyone out?):

Without affirming or denying the validity of the Hanson Hiss interview, I will say that judging Surratt's account of his escape to be false does not depend on the interview. (I am always wary of dismissing evidence and tradition too easily. I have seen cases of accounts dismissed as fraudulent only to see them later confirmed as authentic. An example is the famous Barlow-Gordon encounter at Gettysburg, widely reported to be an invention. I now have six accounts affirming its authenticity. The fact that Surratt never discredited the Hanson Hiss interview, despite having plenty of time and opportunity to do so, is, to me, very telling, and cannot be dismissed on a theory of avoidance of publicity. One does not ordinarily allow totally false representations to go unchallenged. Equally telling is the fact that Hiss would even put it out to the world as genuine knowing that Surratt was out there to tell the world he was a colossal liar.)

Consider that the original report of the escape from Surratt's "guards" (actually Zouave comrades) stated that the distance from the rim to the outcropping was 35 feet. The report of their superior, de Lambilly (who, of course, received his information from his subordinates) confirmed the distance at 35 feet. His superior, however (Allet), reported that the distance was 23 feet. Surratt, himself, however, later said that he found the story of the leap to be "a great source of amusement" and the distance was really only 12 feet!! Why would his "guards" say it was 35 feet and Allet say it was 23 feet if it was only 12 feet? These disparities demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the initial report was a fabrication designed to protect those who made it, i.e. Surratt's "guards", who were really his friends, and that Surratt favored the story because it in turn protected his "guards". He felt compelled, however, to shorten the distance to 12 feet, because he realized that the 35-foot and 23-foot versions were simply too much to be believed. As Jampoler said in his biography of Surratt: "It is easy to see why the Zouaves preferred to report the other escape story (the leap), one that featured a minute of sudden, astonishing derring-do by their prisoner, instead of a long night of stolid incompetence by officers and criminal conspiracy by enlisted guards, guards who saw no reason to turn over a comrade in arms to a distant, godless government."

Lastly, consider that just as Surratt had every reason to fabricate his escape story, and just as his "guards" had every reason to do the same, Lipman, a fellow Zouave, who was one of his 12 (not six) "guards" and who told a completely different and much more prosaic escape story, had absolutely no motivation to fabricate anything.

John

[Dave Taylor]

(08-09-2015 10:35 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Consider that the original report of the escape from Surratt's "guards" (actually Zouave comrades) stated that the distance from the rim to the outcropping was 35 feet. The report of their superior, de Lambilly (who, of course, received his information from his subordinates) confirmed the distance at 35 feet. His superior, however (Allet), reported that the distance was 23 feet. Surratt, himself, however, later said that he found the story of the leap to be "a great source of amusement" and the distance was really only 12 feet!! Why would his "guards" say it was 35 feet and Allet say it was 23 feet if it was only 12 feet? These disparities demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the initial report was a fabrication designed to protect those who made it, i.e. Surratt's "guards", who were really his friends, and that Surratt favored the story because it in turn protected his "guards". He felt compelled, however, to shorten the distance to 12 feet, because he realized that the 35-foot and 23-foot versions were simply too much to be believed. As Jampoler said in his biography of Surratt: "It is easy to see why the Zouaves preferred to report the other escape story (the leap), one that featured a minute of sudden, astonishing derring-do by their prisoner, instead of a long night of stolid incompetence by officers and criminal conspiracy by enlisted guards, guards who saw no reason to turn over a comrade in arms to a distant, godless government."

Lastly, consider that just as Surratt had every reason to fabricate his escape story, and just as his "guards" had every reason to do the same, Lipman, a fellow Zouave, who was one of his 12 (not six) "guards" and who told a completely different and much more prosaic escape story, had absolutely no motivation to fabricate anything.

John

John,

It makes sense to me that the reported distances would be different because everyone judges distances differently. I, for one, am terrible at accurately judging the distance between two points and I bet I would be even worse at it if I were looking down and trying to judge how far a drop was. I doubt anyone, even after the event, took the time to actually measure the distance between where Surratt jumped and where he landed. I will admit that there was likely some degree of exaggeration in recounting the distance of the jump, but to say that equates to a purposeful "cover up" to benefit Surratt is too far fetched to me.

Also, Lipman's account of 12 guards is contradictory to the 6 guards reported by the Papal authorities. His entire story of the sewer escape is contradictory to the official record. Lipman's account comes from 1881 which is a bit far removed from the event. Ultimately though, the fact that he recalls such a different story than as what was reported by the authorities puts the burden of proof on Lipman.

John, show me any evidence, aside from Lipman's word, that he was actually present with Surratt in 1866, and then I will happily give more weight to his account. Until that time, Lipman's is just another unsubstantiated story from a person trying to ride on the coattails of history.