Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

John Fazio · 08-09-2015, 11:36 AM

(08-09-2015 10:57 AM)Dave Taylor Wrote:
(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.

Dave:

I have thus far not been successful in obtaining the information I have requested from Rome re Henry Lipman. I have been shuffled around. My last communication was with an official of the Museo di Armee. But I will continue to pursue it and hopefully have the information we both wish to have. I will keep you advised. Schein makes the point that all records of Surratt's service in the Zouaves have disappeared. That is probably due to the murmurings about the Church's complicity in the assassination occasioned by the fact that Catholic clerics protected Surratt while he was in Canada and abroad. The possibility exists that Lipman's records have also been excised, and for the same reason, which may be why I am getting what appears to be a run-around.

I would like to expand a little on the Hanson Hiss interview. Imagine the consequences to Hiss if the subject of his interview had blown the whistle on him and told the world that he was a liar and that no such interview had ever occurred, in terms of his reputation, his job, his career, his finances, etc. Who among us would take that risk? Yet Hiss reported the interview apparently without hesitation or fear. That suggests strongly that the interview has a great claim to authenticity. Mistakes? Mistakes are always made. The newspapers run "correction" notices almost every day. It was in this interview, recall, that Surratt returned to the 35-foot story. As it says in Decapitating, no one lands safety from a leap of 35 feet even if he or she landed on a pile of powder puffs.

John