John Surratt

[John Fazio]

(08-05-2013 10:22 PM)SSlater Wrote:  

(08-05-2013 01:53 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  To me the most interesting aspect of the "John Surratt whereabouts" argument is that both opinions have solid supporting evidence. Was he in Elmira or Washington? I do not know. I think one of the better arguments he was in Washington is the fact that Atzerodt's July 6 statement seems to correspond with the testimony of Sergeant Joseph Dye. At the John Surratt trial Dye testified he saw Booth with two men in front of Ford's shortly before the assassination. Was Surratt one of these men? Dye said yes.

By Mr. Pierrepont:

Q. Did you see that man distinctly?
A. I did.

Q. Very distinctly?
A. I did very distinctly.

Q. Do you see him now?
A. I do.

Q. Can you tell us where he is?
A. I can.

Q. Tell us where he is.
A. He sits there, (pointing to the prisoner.)

Q. Is that the man?
A. It is. I have seen his face often since, while I have been sleeping —it was so exceedingly pale. He hurried up towards H street again, and that is the last I have seen of him until lately.

Q. You say he was the prisoner at the bar?
A. Yes, sir, and I say that I have seen him since, while I have been sleeping.

Q. Did it make a very strong impression from what occurred at the time?
A. It did, sir.

Q. What did Booth do then?
A. He walked directly into the theatre.


Was Dye mistaken? I do not know. I do know additional testimony was brought in at the trial which indicated that the group in front of the theater included neither Booth or Surratt.

OK, that was some of the testimony before the Jury. Check this out:
Alfred Isacsson, tells us in his writings "The Travels, Arrest and Trial of John Surratt" by using a quote from the Philadelphia Press, "The Jury voted 8 to 4 for acquittal, because the JURY WAS NOT CONVINCED THAT JOHN SURRATT WAS IN WASHINGTON AT THE TIME OF THE ASSASSINATION.". That Jury SAW and HEARD all the testimony, and rejected the claim that Surratt was in Washington and participated in the assassination. That rejection - alone- freed Surratt.

SSlater:

Yes, but remember that there was a strong regional bias in the jury's verdict. The four who voted for conviction were all Northerners. Seven of the eight who voted for acquittal came from Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia. Only one was a Northerner, and he was from New York. His vote was attributed to "New York City's close commercial ties with the cotton-growing South...and the influence of anti-war, anti-abolition Copperheads in the city..." In my judgment, the prosecution made a tactical error in trying so hard to prove that Surratt was in Washington on 4-14. They should, instead, have tried to convict him under the conspiracy laws by showing that he was a part of Booth's conspiracy, whatever its goal was, which should not have been that hard to do. Had they done that, they would have been able to introduce Ste. Marie's Italian Affidavit, wherein Surratt admitted his complicity in the conspiracy to kill Lincoln. But because the Affidavit said that Surratt had told Ste. Marie that he was "in New York prepared to fly when the deed was done", the prosecution could not introduce it. They sacrificed the best evidence they had because in their judgment the price of introducing it was too high. But it is a price they would not have had to pay if they had not put all their eggs in the Surratt-in-Washington-on-April 14 basket.

John

---

(08-05-2013 02:18 PM)L Verge Wrote:  There are two items that have not been discussed in this back-and-forth about where Surratt was on April 14, and both of these continue to be spurious in the minds of many researchers: What are your opinions on the so-called "Pilgrim Interview" which appeared in The Times of Baltimore in 1885, and also of the Hanson Hiss article published in the April 3, 1898, Washington Post?

Laurie:

I did mention the Hanson Hiss interview. As for its veracity, please consider the response of Weichmann and Police Superintendent A. C. Richards in "Pursued By His Foes", which appeared first in the April 18, 1898, Washington Post, but which is also reprinted on pp. 452-454 of Weichmann's True History.

As for the "Pilgrim Interview", I am not familiar with it. Can you please familiarize me with it? If you have a copy, can you send it without inconvenience or expense to yourself? If not, I will try to obtain it. I see that it is in the Special Collections of Georgetown University, from where I recently obtained letters relating to the bridge crossing. That place is a goldmine of information.

John