I agree. Mary knew this young man's voice; his physique, his manner. She had entertained him in her parlor, he had eaten at her table. He had conversed with her. Mary had sought him out at the Herndon House.

I would have to say that she knew him - at least something in his mien would have struck her; i.e. to make her think, "I've seen this fellow before; he seems familiar." Of course, she would have denied any recognition if she knew what he had done or thought that he would possibly implicate her son in any way.

Thanks-BettyO-Mary knew how to lie to save herself!

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/s...ce=0&state

See the section "Surratt" extreme rt column in the middle. Mary Surratt's agitation at seeing Powell can best be explained by A-Booth told her of LTP's assignment or B-MS realized from the description of Seward's assailant that it must be Powell.

So far this is the only Washington newspaper account I have seen that identified in any way the Seward would be assassin. No one could confuse Surratt with Powell. As of now my theory B has no basis in fact but I will still be looking.

This is the first time I have encountered accusations that John Surratt was involved in what sounds like a breach of promise lawsuit. Either his enemies were throwing everything including the kitchen sink-true or false- at him or an imaginative editor figured out a way to put sex into the Lincoln assassination.

Tom

(04-19-2015 01:00 AM)Thomas Thorne Wrote:  http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/s...ce=0&state

See the section "Surratt" extreme rt column in the middle. Mary Surratt's agitation at seeing Powell can best be explained by A-Booth told her of LTP's assignment or B-MS realized from the description of Seward's assailant that it must be Powell.

So far this is the only Washington newspaper account I have seen that identified in any way the Seward would be assassin. No one could confuse Surratt with Powell. As of now my theory B has no basis in fact but I will still be looking.

This is the first time I have encountered accusations that John Surratt was involved in what sounds like a breach of promise lawsuit. Either his enemies were throwing everything including the kitchen sink-true or false- at him or an imaginative editor figured out a way to put sex into the Lincoln assassination.

Tom

Me thinks that the newspaper confused father with son. Shortly after their marriage in 1840, John Harrison Surratt, Sr. was brought up on bastardy charges by another young lady of the area. Descendants of that child (a son) are still in the region, but their line never took the name Surratt.

Mary Surratt was just 17-years-old at the time this happened. Her husband was 27. I cannot imagine how Mary felt upon learning of his "indiscretion." She may well have been pregnant with Isaac at that time - I've never checked dates. She made sure of one thing, however, the child's mother agreed to have the son baptised in the Catholic church.

Finished reading the book. What I was not aware of was the incompetency of Mary's legal team. There is a thought that you know the answer before the question is asked. From my thinking it would have been better if there were not any witnesses called for the defense.
Thanks for bringing this book to my attention.