Sarah Slater's death certificate

[John Fazio]

(11-06-2015 12:21 AM)SSlater Wrote:  (I hope this works) The whole certificate is a mess. But, IT IS SARAH.
1. Her mother's maiden name was Rayaud. "A. Raynaud" became Sarah's Code name, You can find her in the SLH Register with John Harrison on April 18, when they got back from Elmira. The St. Albans Raiders didn't know by any other name.
2. Her Occupation was really "Trained Nurse", but she wasn't working at the end of her life.
3. Birthplace of her Father - not Conn. He was from he Trinidad Area.
4.Her Father was Jos. M.
5. Her Husband (at this time) was SPENCER, but he was also her Brother in law. He was married to her sister, until she died.
6.Sarah's tombstone at "Poughkeepsie Rural" is shown in "Find A Grave". along with her sister Josephine E. Loftin and her Mother A. R. Gilbert.
7. Sarah did not live in "Pokie" for 20 Years, She married Spencer in New York City, and they lived there until he died. He was a Clerk in the Police Dept. She was married in "The Little Church Around the Corner."
8. I have a Picture of 6 Grub Street. Some men lived on the 1st floor and she lived above.
9 Her Death Certif. was provided by her "baby" brother. Joseph. He lived in Reading PA. She had another brother in Hazleton, PA
I talked to one of their children and asked if they would like to know more about Sarah. They said NO.
10She had brothers in Jax, FL and in Hoboken, NJ
(I also have a Birth Certif, and Divorce Papers. and Josephine's Marriage Certif. and more.)
I am getting all these papers ready to give to Laurie, they are a mess, so it will take time.
Sahrah also had some family in Atlantic City.
Susan Do You need anything more at this time ?
I can tell you where she was Every Day of her Life. (She may have been on a train, but I know where it started and ended.)
I'm working on Harney now.

SSlater:

First of all, excellent work, and I will look forward to learning more about Thomas Harney.

My understanding is that she and Surratt arrived in Richmond, after a difficult journey from Washington, at the end of March (29-31); that John returned to Washington on April 3 and left the following morning for Montreal, stopping first in New York to see Booth, who, however, was not there, being engaged, rather, in Boston. Do we really know that Sarah was with him on this trip? In any case, he then continued on to Montreal, arriving there on the 6th. He later told McMillan that while there, he received a "letter", by which I shall assume he meant a telegram, from Booth, advising him that their plans had changed and "ordering" him to return to Washington "immediately" because it had become necessary for them to "act promptly". (Vol. 1 of his trial, p. 471). Weichmann also mentions the communication (p. 335). Further, in response to the "letter", he left Montreal "immediately" for Washington. Putting aside, for the moment, the question of why he would stop in Elmira if he was ordered to Washington immediately, why would he bring Sarah with him to Elmira? None of the five witnesses who put him in Elmira at the time (though only one unequivocally puts him there on the 14th) said anything about his being in the company of a woman. The business about casing out the prison there for a possible breakout has an odor to it; Grant had resumed prisoner exchange in January and had set a goal of 3,000 per week. Nevertheless, assuming he really did go to Elmira and assuming she accompanied him, why would she return to Montreal with him after the assassination? The Elmira story, of course, is contradicted by some 13 or 14 witnesses at his trial, who put him in Washington on the 14th, as well as by Ste. Marie, who testified that Surratt had told him he was in Washington that day and left the following morning, by train, in disguise. As for Ste. Marie, however, it must be said that there is a lie in there somewhere (maybe Surratt's), because in his Affidavit in Italy he said that Surratt had told him he was in New York at the time of the assassination "prepared to fly". That has to be why Carrington, Pierrepont, et al. did not introduce the Affidavit, intent, as they were, on proving that Surratt was in Washington. I would still like to know why he would go to Elmira and blithely patronize haberdashers, etc. if his orders were to return to Washington immediately because their plans had changed (the failure of the Harney mission?). I am interested in your thoughts on all of this.

John