There was often a practical reason for having your name on a variety of clothing items

Bak then, u aint got no drivrs lisens, no dog tag, no kinda ID.
so u jus had ur name on a hanky in cas u got killed or sumthin, folks wood no whu u wuz

Surratt arrived at the St. Lawrence Hall Hotel [Montreal] on April 6th, and checked out on the 12th of that month. He returned on the 18th and left a few hours later. Does someone know the exact times of check in and check out? Thanks.

Kees, I checked Michael Shein's book, and the only time I could find for any of those dates was April 6th. His check in time was 10:30 A.M. (as "John Harrison"). I'll keep looking...

On April 18, he checked in at 12:30 p.m., the same time that a T. F. Hendrickson and a Miss H. C. Slater checked in.

This is from a list at the Hall Research Center complied by Randall Haines for James Hall.

Thanks Roger & Susan! Still hunting for the check out dates / times. A lot more difficult to find.

The hotel bookkeeper testified that Surratt left the hotel at 2:45 on April 12 (see p. 167 of volume 1 of John Surratt's trial transcript).

As for April 18, the bookkeeper testified that the only entry was for Surratt's arrival and that he left the hotel "instantly," although the bookkeeper acknowledged that he might have stayed there longer without his knowing it. John Surratt himself said in his Rockville lecture that he left at nightfall on April 18. Weichmann in his book also said that Surratt left in the evening on April 18.

https://books.google.com/books?id=r3IDAA...e&q&f=true

(Sorry, I'm trying to link to page 167 but Google Books isn't cooperating with me.)

(03-17-2017 09:58 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  The hotel bookkeeper testified that Surratt left the hotel at 2:45 on April 12 (see p. 167 of volume 1 of John Surratt's trial transcript).

As for April 18, the bookkeeper testified that the only entry was for Surratt's arrival and that he left the hotel "instantly," although the bookkeeper acknowledged that he might have stayed there longer without his knowing it. John Surratt himself said in his Rockville lecture that he left at nightfall on April 18. Weichmann in his book also said that Surratt left in the evening on April 18.

https://books.google.com/books?id=r3IDAA...e&q&f=true

(Sorry, I'm trying to link to page 167 but Google Books isn't cooperating with me.)

Thanks again for your help Susan !

Do any of you have access to Frederick Hatch's 2016 book, John Surratt: Rebel, Lincoln Conspirator, Fugitive?

Fred has very detailed information on this "Elmira" subject in Chapter 6, "In Hiding" - complete with trains, boats, hotels, and statements.

In parting, let me just say that one detail that convinced me that Surratt was not in DC at the time of the assassination is the description that two Elmira residents gave of John Surratt's "Canadian style" coat. One specifically said that he saw Surratt in it between April 12 and 15. Those are minor little details to some people, but I consider them a telling clue for us.

I don't care how much we quibble over time schedules between DC and points in NY and Canada, I still think that there were more reliable sources placing Surratt away from the scene of the crime in DC. Those who testified against Surratt had much more to gain -- federal authorities as well as seekers of rewards.

(03-17-2017 11:46 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Do any of you have access to Frederick Hatch's 2016 book, John Surratt: Rebel, Lincoln Conspirator, Fugitive?

Fred has very detailed information on this "Elmira" subject in Chapter 6, "In Hiding" - complete with trains, boats, hotels, and statements.

In parting, let me just say that one detail that convinced me that Surratt was not in DC at the time of the assassination is the description that two Elmira residents gave of John Surratt's "Canadian style" coat. One specifically said that he saw Surratt in it between April 12 and 15. Those are minor little details to some people, but I consider them a telling clue for us.

I don't care how much we quibble over time schedules between DC and points in NY and Canada, I still think that there were more reliable sources placing Surratt away from the scene of the crime in DC. Those who testified against Surratt had much more to gain -- federal authorities as well as seekers of rewards.

I'm with you Laurie. The way that Surratt's schedule developed between March 25, and the assassination, I think there were valid reasons to get Surratt away from the "action". The biggest one was - Surratt was not a KILLER. He avoided army service on either side. He claims somewhere that he "promised mommy that I wouldn't join the Army." He was a draft dodger par excelance. I am willing to bet that Sarah told him about the plan to "Blow up the White House" and he put MILES between himself and the action. It's possible that even the South approved that decision. Everything we read tells us that her trips to Canada. to Richmond, back to Canada etc. were to settle the details of the Assassination. The South didn't even start Harney on his assignment until Sarah got to Richmond (March 29). with Thompson's willingness to participate.
Surratt could not make himself participate in the plan. It was totally outside of his capabilities. I think E. G. Lee was aware of his short-comings. He just didn't have the "Killer Instinct". So, they put him where he was "Safe", and sent Sarah along to keep him out of the way.
How about someone, or every one, picking this apart and show me where I am wrong and give me your ideas.

John, I know you are a strong believer in Elmira, but the first thing that came to my mind after reading your post was in reference to the man calling time in front of Ford's Theatre. If Surratt were not a killer, and refused any assignment that involved killing people, then it would explain what Booth asked him to do on the 14th. Atzerodt said that Booth told him that "Surratt was to help at the box." Maybe Booth was really saying that Surratt was going to help at the theater, not inside the theater.

This is pure speculation on my part as I lean to Surratt being in Elmira, but I am also impressed by some of the Washington arguments.

(03-17-2017 11:46 AM)L Verge Wrote:  In parting, let me just say that one detail that convinced me that Surratt was not in DC at the time of the assassination is the description that two Elmira residents gave of John Surratt's "Canadian style" coat.

I suppose that John Surratt's "Canadian style" coat was his Garibaldi-jacket, made by Montreal tailor John J. Reeves. Reeves has sworn that he made a Garibaldi-jacket for Surratt between April 8th and 9th, and yes, Surratt was seen in that jacket in Elmira. When he returned to Canada on April 18th Surratt has on that coat, which was seen by the agent of the hotel and the clerk who kept the register.

But does that prove beyond any doubt that Surratt was NOT in DC? If Surratt was in DC on the 14th, then he arrived early in the morning of that day. A Garibaldi-jacket was NOT in use in the city of Washington in 1865, so why wear it when you want to be “unseen” ?

---

(03-18-2017 12:20 AM)SSlater Wrote:  I think there were valid reasons to get Surratt away from the "action". The biggest one was - Surratt was not a KILLER. He avoided army service on either side. He claims somewhere that he "promised mommy that I wouldn't join the Army."

I don’t believe that Surratt was not a killer! He surely WAS! Remember that he related to Dr. McMillan on the Peruvian the particulars of his trip to Richmond late in March, 1865, accompanied by Sarah Slater. Thomas Harris wrote in “Assassination of Lincoln: a History of the Great Conspiracy” (1892) the following: “Surratt related to the doctor the difficulty they had in crossing the Potomac. They were hailed by a gun-boat, and called upon to surrender. They said they would do so, but waited for the small boat that had been sent to bring them in to come alongside, when they suddenly arose, poured a volley into the crew of the small boat, and then, in the confusion that ensued, made their escape. There were twelve or fifteen crossing with him at the time, and all were armed with revolvers. Having gotten within the Confederate lines south of Fredericksburg, they were being pushed along by negroes on a hand-car when they met five or six forlorn, half-starved Union soldiers, who had made their escape from a rebel prison and were striking for freedom. At the suggestion of this wicked woman they shot them down, and passed on, leaving them lying on the ground.”

So, Surratt had no problems with killing. That he avoided army service and promised his mother that he would not join the army, was IMO not that he didn't have the "Killer Instinct", but that his mother feared that he would have a “too great risk” of being wounded or killed.

---

(03-18-2017 04:06 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  This is pure speculation on my part as I lean to Surratt being in Elmira, but I am also impressed by some of the Washington arguments.

IMO, history is always speculation as it is written by people. Maybe it’s better to say that all history is subjective. According to me it’s always very difficult to abstract, to analyse things and to make sense of everything. If you decide that some things are events, you always give an subjective interpretation. I really think that objectivity does not exist, not alone in history, but in all things. Okay, history is all about facts, but what is a fact? What a fact is for you, belongs in the world of subjectivity to another. Even the way history is told is subjective.

That said, I believed the Elmira scenario, but now, I more and more tend to believe the Washington scenario. The presence of Surratt in Washington City on the day of the assassination is acceptable for me by the testimonies of Charles Wood, Sergeant Dye, David Reed and Susan Ann Jackson. Speculation, subjective or not, I can’t fully ignore these witnesses.

(03-18-2017 10:20 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 11:46 AM)L Verge Wrote:  In parting, let me just say that one detail that convinced me that Surratt was not in DC at the time of the assassination is the description that two Elmira residents gave of John Surratt's "Canadian style" coat.

I suppose that John Surratt's "Canadian style" coat was his Garibaldi-jacket, made by Montreal tailor John J. Reeves. Reeves has sworn that he made a Garibaldi-jacket for Surratt between April 8th and 9th, and yes, Surratt was seen in that jacket in Elmira. When he returned to Canada on April 18th Surratt has on that coat, which was seen by the agent of the hotel and the clerk who kept the register.

But does that prove beyond any doubt that Surratt was NOT in DC? If Surratt was in DC on the 14th, then he arrived early in the morning of that day. A Garibaldi-jacket was NOT in use in the city of Washington in 1865, so why wear it when you want to be “unseen” ?

---

(03-18-2017 12:20 AM)SSlater Wrote:  I think there were valid reasons to get Surratt away from the "action". The biggest one was - Surratt was not a KILLER. He avoided army service on either side. He claims somewhere that he "promised mommy that I wouldn't join the Army."

I don’t believe that Surratt was not a killer! He surely WAS! Remember that he related to Dr. McMillan on the Peruvian the particulars of his trip to Richmond late in March, 1865, accompanied by Sarah Slater. Thomas Harris wrote in “Assassination of Lincoln: a History of the Great Conspiracy” (1892) the following: “Surratt related to the doctor the difficulty they had in crossing the Potomac. They were hailed by a gun-boat, and called upon to surrender. They said they would do so, but waited for the small boat that had been sent to bring them in to come alongside, when they suddenly arose, poured a volley into the crew of the small boat, and then, in the confusion that ensued, made their escape. There were twelve or fifteen crossing with him at the time, and all were armed with revolvers. Having gotten within the Confederate lines south of Fredericksburg, they were being pushed along by negroes on a hand-car when they met five or six forlorn, half-starved Union soldiers, who had made their escape from a rebel prison and were striking for freedom. At the suggestion of this wicked woman they shot them down, and passed on, leaving them lying on the ground.”

So, Surratt had no problems with killing. That he avoided army service and promised his mother that he would not join the army, was IMO not that he didn't have the "Killer Instinct", but that his mother feared that he would have a “too great risk” of being wounded or killed.

---

(03-18-2017 04:06 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  This is pure speculation on my part as I lean to Surratt being in Elmira, but I am also impressed by some of the Washington arguments.

IMO, history is always speculation as it is written by people. Maybe it’s better to say that all history is subjective. According to me it’s always very difficult to abstract, to analyse things and to make sense of everything. If you decide that some things are events, you always give an subjective interpretation. I really think that objectivity does not exist, not alone in history, but in all things. Okay, history is all about facts, but what is a fact? What a fact is for you, belongs in the world of subjectivity to another. Even the way history is told is subjective.

That said, I believed the Elmira scenario, but now, I more and more tend to believe the Washington scenario. The presence of Surratt in Washington City on the day of the assassination is acceptable for me by the testimonies of Charles Wood, Sergeant Dye, David Reed and Susan Ann Jackson. Speculation, subjective or not, I can’t fully ignore these witnesses.

So you choose to ignore Elmira witnesses who really don't have a dog in the race (i.e. not vying for reward money)?

---

(03-18-2017 04:06 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  John, I know you are a strong believer in Elmira, but the first thing that came to my mind after reading your post was in reference to the man calling time in front of Ford's Theatre. If Surratt were not a killer, and refused any assignment that involved killing people, then it would explain what Booth asked him to do on the 14th. Atzerodt said that Booth told him that "Surratt was to help at the box." Maybe Booth was really saying that Surratt was going to help at the theater, not inside the theater.

This is pure speculation on my part as I lean to Surratt being in Elmira, but I am also impressed by some of the Washington arguments.

Why are we ignoring the evidence of the two other men being in front of the theater with one calling out the time?

(03-18-2017 11:48 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Why are we ignoring the evidence of the two other men being in front of the theater with one calling out the time?

Here is what Joseph Dye stated during the John Surratt trial:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Q. Did you say that the person said three times that it was ten minutes past ten o'clock ?
A. I said he called the time three times, and this time it was ten minutes past ten o'clock.
Q. And the other periods of time were before ?
A. Yes sir.
By a Juror :
Q. He did not state each time that it was ten minutes past ten ?
A. No, sir. There were eight or nine, or ten minutes between them. The last time I do not think there were more than five.
By Mr. Pierrepont :
Q. Did you see that man distinctly?
A. I did.
Q. Very distinctly ?
A. I did very distinctly.
Q. Do you see him now ?
A. I do.
Q. Can you tell us where he is ?
A. I can.
Q. Tell us where he is.
A. He sits there, (pointing to the prisoner.)
Q. Is that the man ?
A. It is. I have seen his face often since, while I have been sleeping—it was so exceedingly pale. He hurried up towards H street again, and that is the last I have seen of him until lately.
Q. You say he was the prisoner at the bar ?
A. Yes, sir, and I say that I have seen him since, while I have been sleeping.
Q. Did it make a very strong impression from what occurred at the time ?
A. It did, sir.
Q. What did Booth do then ?
A. He walked directly into the theatre.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In Michael Shein's book it says that it was Lewis Carland, a costumer and actor, who called out the time at the request of C.B. Hess.

I would like to see a photo of Lewis Carland to see if Joseph Dye could have confused John Surratt with Lewis Carland.

Can anyone post a photo of Lewis Carland?

(03-18-2017 11:48 AM)L Verge Wrote:  So you choose to ignore Elmira witnesses who really don't have a dog in the race (i.e. not vying for reward money)?

I’m not ignoring the Elmira witnesses and I’m not questioning that Surratt was wearing that Garibaldi-jacket in Elmira. What I do question is that Surratt was in Elmira on April 14, 1865. And I wonder, if he was in Washington city on that date, why would he wear the Garibaldi-jacket? This garment was too showy. And what to think about railroad timetables showing John could have traveled from Elmira to Washington to join the plot, then fled to Canada.

(03-18-2017 01:54 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  

(03-18-2017 11:48 AM)L Verge Wrote:  So you choose to ignore Elmira witnesses who really don't have a dog in the race (i.e. not vying for reward money)?

I’m not ignoring the Elmira witnesses and I’m not questioning that Surratt was wearing that Garibaldi-jacket in Elmira. What I do question is that Surratt was in Elmira on April 14, 1865. And I wonder, if he was in Washington city on that date, why would he wear the Garibaldi-jacket? This garment was too showy. And what to think about railroad timetables showing John could have traveled from Elmira to Washington to join the plot, then fled to Canada.

No one said that Surratt was wearing the "Canadian" coat in D.C. -- only two witnesses in Elmira.

I know how much effort Mr. Hall (he spent about sixty years investigating all elements of the case after being assigned it during World War II) and others put into researching rail routes, times, etc. I don't have Michael Schein's book in front of me, but I need to review his research on that topic. How detailed is it? Has anyone else concentrated on that subject and can prove that all lines, times, etc. line up?