What Was The Role of David Herold

[John Fazio]

(02-11-2013 05:48 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  John, do I understand you correctly....you feel John Surratt was in Washington, not Elmira, on April 14, 1865?

Roger:

I feel the chances are as good as not. I am aware that Jampoler and other major historians accept the Elmira story and that the jury in Surratt's civil trial apparently felt his four witnesses were more credible than the prosecutions 14. Nevertheless, there are compelling arguments putting him in Washington:

1. Fourteen witnesses are not to be so blithely dismissed.

2. What purpose would have been served by casing out the Elmira prison, with the war almost over and Grant exchanging 3,000 prisoners a week?

3. If one receives a message to return to Washington because "our plans have changed", why does one go to Elmira in response thereto?

4. Ste. Marie was inconsistent. In one version of his story, he said that Surratt told him he was in Washington; in another, in "New York".

5. The jury split almost exactly along regional lines: 8 Southerners; four Northerners (7 to 5 for acquittal). That's why it was hung and why Surratt was dismissed. A more objective jury would surely have convicted him. Too bad: he was a vile man and guilty as sin, no less than O.J. It was a major miscarriage of justice. I wonder who paid his three lawyers for months of prep and trial time, hundreds of witnesses, etc., plus his post-release six-month vacation to South America.


It is one of the enduring mysteries of the assassination story. I have no clear answer, which means I do not accept the Elmira story as history--yet.

John