Where was John Surratt on April 14, 1865 ?

[L Verge]

(03-20-2017 04:46 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 03:53 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  I finally found what I had vaguely remembered from years ago regarding Susan Jackson's testimony. It was in Father Jacob Ambrose Walter's May 25, 1891, statement.

Father Walter wrote:

"He (John Surratt) came to Washington on the 4th of April, took supper at home, changed his clothes and left for Elmira the next morning. The testimony of Susan Jackson, Mrs. Surratt's servant, was correct as to facts, but she mistook the date, saying it was April 14th. It was ten days previous to the 14th of April."

We know Father Walter from his fidelity to the cause of Mrs. Surratt. He strongly believed in her innocence, but waited 25 years to give the “true statement of the facts” in a paper presented before the Catholic Historical Society in NY on May 25, 1891.

Guy W. Moore writes in “The Case of Mrs. Surratt: Her Controversial Trial and Execution for Conspiracy in the Lincoln Assassination”: “Father Walter explained that he had waited a quarter of a century to permit people to calm down, to lay aside prejudices. Speaking at a meeting of the Catholic Historical Society in New York about the same time, he said of Mrs. Surratt: “I attended to her spiritual wants until she went to the scaffold. I cannot of course violate my vows to the church and tell the secrets of the confessional, but I will say that from what I know, Mrs. Surratt was innocent of any complicity in that great crime.” And he added that he believed she died “as innocent of that crime as a babe unborn.”

In the May 25, 1891 statement we also can read about Mary Surratt’s declaration of her innocence: “Father, I wish to say something.” ”Well what is it my child?” ”That I am innocent.” Those were according to Father Walter Mary’s “exact words” just before she was led to the scaffold.

That Susan Jackson was mistaken ten days underlines not alone Mary’s innocence but also the innocence of her son. But, have we to believe that Susan Jackson was indeed mistaken? And was Mary as innocence as an unborn baby, as he said? That's another discussion I fear...

Now I want to read the whole statement of Father Walter.

Just a thought here: Note that Fr. Walter references the "great crime" and also says "innocent of that crime." Could the emphasis on "great" and "that" indicate that she did not know that the conspiracy had turned to murder?

I have spent my adult life hearing the old-timers here saying that the last confession was, "Bless me father, for I am innocent. I did not know what they intended to do." That's why I am a fence-rider when it comes to her execution. I understand that her actions up to within hours of the assassination justified it in the eyes of the court, but I think prison was more justified. Of course, a lot of good my opinion does now.