Herold and Surratt

[John Fazio]

(10-10-2013 05:54 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  This is fascinating, Betty! I know the government tried very hard to show John Surratt was in Washington on the 14th. So my first question would be why French Queen was not called as a prosecution witness at Surratt's trial in 1867.

Roger:

Probably because the prosecution (Carrington, Wilson, Pierrepont and Riddle) already had 14 witnesses putting Surratt in Washington on April 14, and 15 witnesses would have given the appearance of overkill. ("Methinks the lady dost protest too much.")

John

---

Friends:

The business about Surratt's whereabouts on April 14 is difficult and complicated. Aware that even such lights as Jampoler, Steers and Kauffman accept his claim, supported by the testimony of five witnesses from Elmira (though there was some uncertainty in the testimony of all but one), that he was there rather than in Washington, there are still at least seven good reasons for believing he was in Washington, namely:

1. Fourteen prosecution witnesses put him there. Did they all lie? Did the prosecutors knowingly use perjured testimony?
2. Mrs. Surratt told Smoot to come back to the boarding house on Friday when he "would most likely see John and the boys."
3. B. F. Queen said he saw Surratt with Herold at about 4:30 pm on horseback, as has already been mentioned above in this post.
4. Weichmann believed the letter from John that was postmarked April 12, Montreal, was a fraud, designed to put him somewhere he wasn't.
5. Atzerodt, in his July 6 confession, said Booth told him a few days before the murder that Surratt was in Washinton and also told him on 4-14 that Surratt was there and that he had just seen him and that he expected him to help in the box. The latter reference squares with Rhodes's testimony in 1867, but I have other reasons for doubting Rhodes.
6. Susan Mahoney Jackson said she overheard, in the boarding house, reference made to Surratt being in the theater the night of the asassination.
7. Surratt's meanderings from April 6 through 20 are a matter of great uncertainty. His three versions (per McMillan, Rockville lecture and Hanson Hiss interview) are radically different from each other as to where he was, what he did, who he was with, when and under what circumstances he learned of the assassination and what he did in response to it. That can only mean that the accounts are full of lies. It is entirely possibile that he had a look-alike establish his alibi in Elmira.

In retrospect, the prosecution would have been better off if they had tried to convict him under the conspiracy laws, rather than waste so much time and energy trying to put him in Washington. By so doing, they were forced to throw away their best witness: Ste. Marie, because in his Affidavit from Italy, he said that Surratt had told him he was in N.Y. on the 14th, "prepared to fly".

John