John Surratt

[John Fazio]

(08-09-2013 04:09 PM)SSlater Wrote:  John I. (I'm going to call you I, and I'll be John II - Like Pope John the second - now a Saint.) You are a Lawyer through and through. You are entertaining, as well as informative and constructive. You do your home work. But, your Lawyer side is too dominant. Such as: If you don't know the answer - don't ask the question. On the other hand - if there is no answer, ask it, then don't ask what they are thinking - tell them what they are thinking. That's a good lawyer. I hope you never prosecute me or I'm dead.
You say murdering emaciated and almost certainly unarmed escapees. You are posturing for the jury. Very effective. You say MURDERING, I say punitive reaction. You say unarmed. I say no visible conventional weapons. If they have two hands (one is essential) - they are a threat. These guys are criminals. They were in a pen surrounded by armed guards, who should have should have shot before they got this far. They should have stayed where they were safe. These are escaped POW's, still in enemy territory. They may not be a big threat to 4 or 5 well-armed, well-fed, Rebels on a hand-cart, but they are a threat to a lone widow, or a small sickly male, who just put his supper of one rotten apple, on the table. (Did the Jury like that?)
"The Laws of War". I've never read the whole book, but I can remember my own training. Example: If you are bringing in a prisoner or two, and you are getting sleepy - ready to collapse - you cannot risk tieing them up and go to sleep - NO, Shoot them!. That scenario was approved by the US Gov. and the Pope. (That part was important to me.) As trainees, we drove the Chaplain crazy, with our "Desert Island " Stories. (Suppose we are on a desert island, and there is this girl ........) This was War, and we wanted to be ready. (PS. Yes, you can marry her, even if there is no Clergy present) (That was a relief, to know).
I can't answer some questions, I wasn't there. (I.ve dropped the desert Island scenario). I can't answer others because, there is no answer. If I can't answer, it doesn't make the question a good one. The best I can do is tell you something I read. Errors, in any report, are apt to appear, when the teller is resorting to exaggeration, or suppression - depending on the effect they are trying to create.
(We can't agree on the date that the "Failed Abduction" occurred. March 17th, no, the 19th, no the 20th, maybe. So What! it happened.
PS. Surratt could not have been in Elmira for several weeks, we know where he was on April 6, and the 18th. (with lots of travel in between).

We need a ."Superior Judge", who has a list of ALL approved information, and has authority to edit all our ravings. Say, Betty O?
Laurie is full up with extra duties.

SSlater (John II):

Thank you for your response, which calls, I believe, for no further commentary from me other than to say that I consider it a good one.

John

---

(08-10-2013 10:52 AM)L Verge Wrote:  John I - If it's any consolation, every legitimate author that I have known on this subject has had to do major rewrites and condensing to satisfy publishers (and I do feel that publishers know what the buying public's tolerance level is on numbers of pages they have to read).

Mike Kauffman comes to mind because he snuck many of his ideas past the publisher by taking them out of the main text and inserting them (again condensed) into the chapter notes at the end of American Brutus. The only drawback that I see with this method is that probably 50% of the audience doesn't read and absorb chapter notes because they float outside the main flow of the text and aren't retained as well. I actually resorted to reading the book and then going back and reading just the chapter notes and taking the extended ones as little vignettes in their own right.

Laurie:

Quite right. One author friend said it was like "drowning kittens", a painful process. I understand the reasons for it, on the one hand, but on the other hand it means that a truly comprehensive story of the assassination will probably never be told, or at least never be published, because it would take about 1,200 pages to do it.

John

---

(08-10-2013 12:01 PM)Rhatkinson Wrote:  The chapter notes in American Brutus are nearly as good as the chapters. It's the ideal book for your Kindle or ipad as you can quickly click to the notes.

John, thanks for your posts; they are very interesting.

Heath

Heath:

You are quite welcome. So are yours. And so are everyone else's. What a great educational tool this is!

John

---

(08-10-2013 12:17 PM)Troy Cowan Wrote:  John Fazio said,

"I don't know who told Wood about Booth's broken leg, but recall that there were about 1,700 people in the theater and that a lot of them recorded that Booth had broken a leg ("limped", "bull frog", etc.) I believe he broke it when he fell to the stage. The horse business was a cover story. The evidence is strong. He knew a lot of people had witnessed it, which is why he would not lie in his diary, which would have destroyed his credibility".

John, I have been looking for years if anyone present at Ford's Theatre on April 14, 1865, said Booth limped across the stage. I have found none. Maybe you could present some. I have found dozens of statement of people at the Theatre that Booth ran off the stage. For example:


A witness to Booth’s jump, Frederick A. Sawyer, said, “He ran with lightning speed across the stage” .

James B. Stewart testified that “he was at the theater on the night of the assassination, and saw the assassin leap from the box, and made an effort to stop him from running across the stage. Stewart continued,

When I got out of the door I perceived a man mounting a horse. He was at that instant barely mounted. The moon was just beginning to rise, and I could see him better. The horse was moving in a circle as though prematurely spurred in mounting. I ran in the direction to which the horse was heading at about eight or ten feet from the head of the horse, and the rider brought him around to the right again. The horse’s feet were rattling violently on the stones. I crossed in the same direction, and was soon on the right hand side of the horse, but he was gaining on me. When about two-thirds of the way out of the alley, he brought the horse forward and swept to the left of F Street. I commanded him to stop. It all occupied but two seconds.
Source: Lincoln, Davis, and Booth: Family Secrets

Both Booth and Herold said Booth's horse stumbled and fell with Booth on the horse. When they reached Loyd's home, Booth's horse had a bloody knee and Booth had a broken leg and mud on his pants.

Troy:

In deference to Laurie's statement re this issue, let me say only that there is evidence for both positions. In my opinion, the preponderance of the evidence and the better evidence favors a break on the stage. That is also the opinion of most assassination historians, including Holzer, Eisenschiml, Zeinert, O'Neal, Bryan, Weichmann, Mills, Starkey, Roscoe, DeWitt, the Kunhardts, Baker and Steers. As far as I know, only Kauffman and Good favor the horse theory, though I believe Blaine Houmes recently joined them. Let me say, last, that Joseph Stewart is not a good witness. He lied, presumably to flesh out a story he thought he could sell. His testimony is contradicted by almost 10 other witnesses. Police Superintendent A. C. Richards, who was there, said he was a "shady lawyer" (is there such a thing?) whose story of the pas de trois he did with Booth and his bay mare in the alley, outside the theater door, is entirely fictitious. There is a chapter on this subject in my book.

Thank you for your comments.

John