John Surratt

[John Fazio]

(07-31-2013 04:31 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 02:40 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Laurie: I have read Jampoler and I am thus aware of his conclusion re Surratt's whereabouts on 4-14, an opinion shared, incidentally by Mike Kauffman. I am unconvinced. There are many persuasive arguments putting him in Washington, in addition to the material given above. Recall that Ste. Marie testified at Surratt's trial that Surratt told him he left Washington the night of 4-14 or the morning of 4-15 in disguise. I grant that Ste. Marie is not a good witness (his Italian Affidavit is contrary); still, it is another stone on the scale.

John, as you may recall from previous discussions, I am of the belief that John Surratt's whereabouts on April 14 are worthy of discussion. His being in Elmira is not an open and shut case IMO. I realize this is a minority opinion. Personally I agree with you that the arguments Surratt was in Washington that fateful night should not be ignored.

My question regards Mr. Jampoler. You imply he says Surratt was in Elmira. Is that quote in the book somewhere? The reason I ask is because on p. 204 of his book he writes, "Passing 140 years later, the answer to the key question - where Surratt was the night Lincoln was shot - is not more certain than it was in 1867...." To me it seems that Mr. Jampoler is leaving it as an open question. What do you think?

Roger:

Oversight. You are forgiven. The last line of the last page (274) of Jampoler's book reads:

Surratt was in Elmira when Lincoln was assassinated, and the rest of his life flowed from that single fact.

I know that Bill feels he was in Washington. I have not read his book on Surratt (I have read two of his others), but my surmise is that we would use pretty much the same arguments, as follows:

1. 14 witnesses put him in Washington. Can all 14 be wrong? Would prosecutors (Carrington, Pierrepont, Riddle--men of impeccable reputation) knowingly use false testimony?

2. Only 4 witnesses put him in Elmira, only one of whom was unequivocal.

3. Smoot said Mary Surratt told him to come back Friday (4-14) when John and the boys would be there.

4. French Queen said he saw Surratt with Herold on 4-14.

5. Weichmann said the 4-12 letter from Surratt "received" by Mrs. Surratt, placing him in Montreal on 4-12, was a fraud. Mary's "losing" it in a matter of hours was surely a lie.

6. If Booth contacted Surratt on 4-10 telling him their plans had changed and to come to Washington forthwith, why would he stop in Elmira, and dilly-dally there, while the Confederacy was crumbling?

7. Gen. E. Lee testified at Surratt's trial and did NOT say he had ordered Surratt to Elmira.

8. In his July 6 confession, Atzerodt said that Booth told him a few days before the assassination that Surratt was in Washington, that he was at the Herndon House on the night of the 14th and that he, Booth, had just seen him.

9. Surratt told three different versions as to how, when and under what circumstances he learned of Lincoln's assassination: one to McMillan; one in his lecture; and one in his Hanson Hiss interview. In the latter he said he had been in Elmira for several weeks, but much earlier than April, and that Wilder sent him there, not Lee. He said nothing about being in Elmira from 4-12 to 4-15 or about being sent there by Lee or about checking out the prison, etc.

10. It is at least possibile that Surratt was the would-be assassin who was on the train with Grant to New Jersey and who failed to assassinate Grant because he couldn't access his locked private car when he tried to do so at the Havre de Grace station or near there. Atzerodt made reference, to Metz or Richter, to somone who was following Grant on the train. This theory, however, loses some force from the fact that the would-be assassin wrote to Grant, acknowledging his purpose to kill him and thanking the Deity that he had not been successful. That doesn't sound like Surratt.

John