Where was John Surratt on April 14, 1865 ?

[John Fazio]

(01-18-2018 09:31 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Did running a safehouse for Confederate agents during the war constitute guilt of assassination? If so, thank heaven the government did not round up everyone in Southern Maryland and the Northern Neck of Virginia who appeared guilty of doing so. Our population would have been sadly depleted down here!

As most of you know, I am not a defender of Mary Surratt (even though I run the Surratt House Museum), and I understand the government's position (sort of); however, it seems that a cursory glance at the evidence against her speaks more of "circumstantial," at least by our modern standards. Or, have I been watching too much Law and Order?

P.S. He was never questioned, but if he had been, my great-grandfather would likely have told the authorities that he had heard Mrs. Surratt offer money to anyone who would kill Lincoln. This happened in our village of T.B. near the end of the war. Would that be classified as hearsay today?

Laurie:

I knew it was only a question of time before we heard from you.

Of course running the safe house did NOT constitute guilt of assassination, but it does show that Mrs. Surratt was very much a part of the Confederate underground from at least 1862 and probably before. Further, when one is part of an underground, it is merely a step and another step and another from less serious activities to more serious ones. It is just about inevitable that the party will be called upon to participate in more serious activities, especially as the need becomes more acute, if he or she has the aptitude, the willingness and the opportunity. It would appear that she had all three.

Do not minimize the value of circumstantial evidence. Most prosecutors prefer it to eyewitness and material evidence because it it is not so easily impeached. But, as a matter of fact, much of the evidence against her was not circumstantial, such as the two trips to Surrattsville, one on the day of the assassination, her intimacy with Booth and his right hand (her son) and especially the three meetings she had with Booth on the 14th, the delivery of the field glasses and the message to Lloyd to have the shooting irons ready because parties would pick them up that night; her flagrant lies about recognition of Powell and about the letter from her son; her numerous remarks to Weichmann and others which were strongly suggestive of complicity; and the fact that Lloyd's devastating testimony was corroborated by Weichmann and also by Atzerodt's May 1 confession. All of this, and more, left the Commissioners with little choice but to find her guilty. The fact that five of them recommended commutation of her sentence, which was not given, is beside the point.

Why would your grandfather have done that? Why should we doubt Tibbett? Because she could not testify, the statement would probably be considered hearsay. I say "probably", because it may have come under one of the many exceptions to the hearsay rule, such as a statement relating to a declarant's motive, intent or plan. It is hard to say. The hearsay rule is one of the more confusing rules in the laws of evidence. It has some 16 or more exceptions, depending on jurisdiction, and we are dealing here with a military trial that occurred 153 years ago, not a modern one in a civil court. A more definitive answer, therefore, is, frankly, beyond me.

John