(10-14-2017 02:06 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Could Judge Fisher have wanted Surratt convicted, so he did not want official orders that would have declared Surratt was in Elmira on April 14 to be admitted into testimony?

Remember the animosity that went on between the judge and Surratt's lawyer? Geez, guys, stop chewing on a rancid bone!

Judge Fisher definitely was not siding with Surratt and his defense team, but I find it doubtful that Gen. E. G. Lee's testimony would be admissible in a criminal trial anyway since it doesn't establish that Surratt was in Elmira on April 14th or testify to the authenticity of documents or objects that would help establish that fact. But just because something would be inadmissible in a criminal trial doesn't mean one should discount that in any historical investigation.

Laurie, I guess I might have restarted the chewing of this bone with my comment/question about defense witness Dr. Augustus Bissell:

(10-10-2017 02:08 AM)Steve Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 05:26 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  And how reliable is the testimony of Augustus Bissell, who also did not know Surratt but saw him on April 14th in the Brainard House in Elmira.

I thought the prosecution was able to impeach Dr. Bissell's testimony by showing that he wasn't in Elmira on the 14th and brought some of his neighbors to the stand who claimed he wasn't trustworthy. Or is my memory wrong on this point?

Muwahh Hahh Hahh! (Evil laugh!)

Also, I'm still interested in finding out more biographical information on Dr. Augustus Bissell besides what's in the trial transcript, if anybody out there has more information!

(10-14-2017 02:06 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(10-14-2017 04:28 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(10-13-2017 11:17 PM)SSlater Wrote:  Why can't we accept Gen. E. G. Lee's statements that he sent Surratt to Elmira, on a spy mission, and that Surratt was in Elmira on April 14, 1865? It seems that we accept the word of known liars and "unsure" egotists without hesitation. There must be additional information that I can't find. Help!

John, do you have Michael Shein's book on John Surratt? If so, please see pp. 276-277. The major point (as I see it) of what Shein writes is that, in the John Surratt trial, Judge George P. Fisher made the decision to exclude Lee's testimony "that Surratt was in Elmira to surveil the prison."

I asked this once before - why did Judge Fisher reject the admission of Lee's orders into the trial record? Was there something suspicious about them that the judge deemed inadmissible? Was the judge skeptical of the Elmira story?

There must be some reason why Lee was never allowed to substantiate in court that Surratt was in Elmira.

Could Judge Fisher have wanted Surratt convicted, so he did not want official orders that would have declared Surratt was in Elmira on April 14 to be admitted into testimony?

Remember the animosity that went on between the judge and Surratt's lawyer? Geez, guys, stop chewing on a rancid bone!

Thanks Laurie, I didn't realize that Judge Fisher was still controlling some of the Public's Thinking. This information would have cleared Surratt, so he would not allow it to be presented in his Court. But that should not influence our analysis of the facts.
Can we now accept that Surratt was in Elmira and find a new Bone to chew?

As a suggestion, can we "chew the bone" on whether Surratt had any real assignment in the Assassination Plot? I think he "knew" what was up, but did not (could not!) participate. It is very possible that he did know about Harney's participation, and knew about Harney's capture.
But, all that developed between April 10+/- and April 14 was NEWS to him. He never abandoned his Mother at this time - he never knew.

Mary Surratt was not guilty of the plot that resulted in Lincoln's death.
She was totally uninformed of that plot. Everyone kept their mouth shut about Harney -forever. It was years later before the public ever heard of Harney - too late! (I'm passing the BONE, someone else tell me what they think - If you please.[/size]

(10-14-2017 03:30 PM)SSlater Wrote:  Mary Surratt was not guilty of the plot that resulted in Lincoln's death.
She was totally uninformed of that plot. Everyone kept their mouth shut about Harney -forever. It was years later before the public ever heard of Harney - too late! (I'm passing the BONE, someone else tell me what they think - If you please.[/size]

Mary went to the Surratt Tavern and met Booth at her home in Washington the day of the assassination, is enough to convince me (along with other factors) that she knew about the plot to kill Lincoln. And knew about it early enough that she could have tried to stop it. In my mind that makes her guilty of the plot.

Gene is working under the same premise as the military court in determining that it was all one big conspiracy from kidnapping to murder and, since Mrs. Surratt was doing Booth's bidding up to within hours of the assassination, she was guilty of that conspiracy. On the other hand, her defenders would say that doing his bidding did not mean that she knew what he intended to finally do.

That's always been a sticking point with me - did she know that the plan had changed, and could she have been able to stop it? If one takes the laws of conspiracy as they existed with the military court proceedings in 1865, it makes no difference (IMO). As I have ended some of my talks on the subject -- In for one, in for all.

Remember, Smoot said she told him the boat would be used that night. Was it a lie or evidence that she didn't know the plot had changed? Impossible to know for certain.

Since Susan Jackson is mentioned on this thread, I thought it would be of interest to post this comment about her in John E. Washington's "They Knew Lincoln" (the new edition of which just came out): "Old Aunt Vina knew Susie Jackson and everybody in the county could never understand why Susie let Lincoln be killed when she knew that in Mrs. Surratt's house, where she worked, all the plans had been made. When this news got out every colored person for miles around felt it a disgrace to their race that she didn't tell about what was going on, because the war was over and nobody was going to hurt her."

Susan, that is fascinating! Thank you for posting.

In all fairness to Susan Jackson, wasn't she a new employee, and John Surratt would not have been staying at the boardinghouse during her time there? Or was there some overlap between her hiring and John being there?

Offhand, I do not recall ever reading there were ever any plot-related discussions within earshot
of Susan Jackson.

Yes, the accusations against her seem ill-founded. She seems to have seen John Surratt only briefly, on the evening of his return from Richmond.

(10-16-2017 09:00 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  Remember, Smoot said she told him the boat would be used that night. Was it a lie or evidence that she didn't know the plot had changed? Impossible to know for certain.

Jerry:

Those who continue to talk about the plot changing are "missing the boat". It is not necessary for Lincoln to be in the boat for it to be used that night. Recall that three assassins were to make their way across the river and that two actually did. If you stop thinking about a changed plot, you will get closer to the truth. Remember that the Holcombe, Clay and Thompson meetings with Dr. Luke Pryor Blackburn and Godfrey Hyams in Canada prove that the post Wistar and Dahlgren-Kilpatrick Confederate leadership was trying to murder Lincoln as early as the summer of 1864. Recall, too, Surratt's admission to Ste. Marie in Italy, namely "We killed Lincoln, the n____r's friend". (My emphasis.) Recall, also, that Surratt was Benjamin's official courier, meeting with him almost weekly in Richmond, per Ste. Marie. Recall, also, that Booth met Harbin before and after the assassination, after which Harbin left the country for 5 years, and that upon his return, he admitted, in his writings, that he reported directly to Davis. How much evidence do you need?

See pp. 60-68 of my book for the evidence that sent Mrs. Surratt to the gallows.

As for Surratt's whereabouts on April 14, it is still a mystery, but see pp. 45-48 of the book for evidence that he was in Washington.

John

---

(01-16-2018 10:29 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Yes, the accusations against her seem ill-founded. She seems to have seen John Surratt only briefly, on the evening of his return from Richmond.

Susan:

My information is that Susan Jackson stated that while she feigned sleep on the floor of the boardinghouse, she overheard three men, who had come to the house late on the night of the assassination, tell Mrs. Surratt that her son had been in the theater that night with Booth. What evidence do you have that she actually saw John Surratt in Washington? See p. 544 of The Lincoln Assassination (Edwards and Steers, Jr.). See also p. 46 of Decapitating the Union.

John

John, with all the info available today, it is easy to get confused about who said what, and under what circumstances.

We know that some of the witnesses were hopeful to be rewarded in some way for their testimony, some were intimidated, and some were just inconsistent and unreliable, either on purpose or because they just couldn't keep their stories straight.

For me, Ste. Marie is unreliable and Susan Jackson quite possibly was intimidated.
John, can you share with us why you believe that Ste. Marie's testimony is reliable?
(you may need/want to start a separate thread on Ste. Marie)

(01-17-2018 03:11 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 09:00 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  Remember, Smoot said she told him the boat would be used that night. Was it a lie or evidence that she didn't know the plot had changed? Impossible to know for certain.

Jerry:

Those who continue to talk about the plot changing are "missing the boat". It is not necessary for Lincoln to be in the boat for it to be used that night. Recall that three assassins were to make their way across the river and that two actually did. If you stop thinking about a changed plot, you will get closer to the truth. Remember that the Holcombe, Clay and Thompson meetings with Dr. Luke Pryor Blackburn and Godfrey Hyams in Canada prove that the post Wistar and Dahlgren-Kilpatrick Confederate leadership was trying to murder Lincoln as early as the summer of 1864. Recall, too, Surratt's admission to Ste. Marie in Italy, namely "We killed Lincoln, the n____r's friend". (My emphasis.) Recall, also, that Surratt was Benjamin's official courier, meeting with him almost weekly in Richmond, per Ste. Marie. Recall, also, that Booth met Harbin before and after the assassination, after which Harbin left the country for 5 years, and that upon his return, he admitted, in his writings, that he reported directly to Davis. How much evidence do you need?

See pp. 60-68 of my book for the evidence that sent Mrs. Surratt to the gallows.

As for Surratt's whereabouts on April 14, it is still a mystery, but see pp. 45-48 of the book for evidence that he was in Washington.

John

---

(01-16-2018 10:29 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Yes, the accusations against her seem ill-founded. She seems to have seen John Surratt only briefly, on the evening of his return from Richmond.

Susan:

My information is that Susan Jackson stated that while she feigned sleep on the floor of the boardinghouse, she overheard three men, who had come to the house late on the night of the assassination, tell Mrs. Surratt that her son had been in the theater that night with Booth. What evidence do you have that she actually saw John Surratt in Washington? See p. 544 of The Lincoln Assassination (Edwards and Steers, Jr.). See also p. 46 of Decapitating the Union.

John

See her testimony at John Surratt's trial (volume 1, 163-64) about her seeing John, and Nora Fitzpatrick's (volume 1, 720-21) describing John's actions on the night he returned from Richmond and noting Susan's presence.

(01-17-2018 07:15 AM)Gene C Wrote:  John, with all the info available today, it is easy to get confused about who said what, and under what circumstances.

We know that some of the witnesses were hopeful to be rewarded in some way for their testimony, some were intimidated, and some were just inconsistent and unreliable, either on purpose or because they just couldn't keep their stories straight.

For me, Ste. Marie is unreliable and Susan Jackson quite possibly was intimidated.
John, can you share with us why you believe that Ste. Marie's testimony is reliable?
(you may need/want to start a separate thread on Ste. Marie)

Gene:

The short answer is: I DON'T consider him reliable IN EVERY INSTANCE. To say that someone is unreliable is not to say that everything he said is therefore false. When evaluating the veracity of a statement, writing, etc., we have little choice but to apply the usual tests of truth, i.e. the criterion of embarrassment, the criterion of discontinuity, the criterion of multiple attestation and the criterion of coherence, and then hope for the best, knowing that there are no certainties, that possibilities are infinite and that we must, therefore, content ourselves with probabilities. We know that Ste. Marie was in some degree untrustworthy because he gave two different accounts as to where Surratt said he was on April 14: in his Affidavit he said "in New York prepared to fly" and in his testimony at Surratt's trial he said that Surratt had said he was in Washington and left town by train, after the assassination, disguised as an Englishman. It was for this reason that his counsel refused to admit the Affidavit in evidence, thereby throwing away perhaps the best evidence they had so as not to affect their theory of his presence in Washington. His trial testimony was deemed to be so ineffective that defense counsel did not even bother to cross examine him. But bear in mind that in order for Ste. Marie to claim the reward money, which, I agree, was most likely hs purpose in following Surratt and joining the Papal Zouaves himself, he had only to establish Surratt's presence in Italy so the U.S. government could get their hands on him. The substance of his conversations with Surratt was therefore unnecessary and therefore most likely, in my judgment, to be true or substantially true, especially those parts that are corroborated by other sources and those parts that are consistent with the overall theory of complicity of the Confederate government and its Secret Service in the assassination and attempted assassinations that occurred on April 14. It is for this reason that the following two statements made by Ste. Marie in his Affidavit are, in my judgment, true, namely that Surratt had said to him: "Damn the Yankees, they have killed my mother, but I have done them as much harm as I could, we have killed Lincoln the n_____'s friend" and that "I have also asked him if he knew Jefferson Davis, he said no, but that he had acted under the instruction of persons under his immediate orders. Being asked if Jefferson Davis had anything to do with the assassination, he said 'I am not going to tell you'". Both of these statements have the strong ring of truth to them. They are unnecessary to Ste. Marie's purpose and they are exactly what we should expect Surratt to say, in the circumstances, not realizing that "I am not going to tell you" is as good as an affirmative answer. Be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. We know that Charles Dunham was a scoundrel and a perjurer (with purpose), but we can be reasonably certain that his statement that Jacob Thompson had said that "The purpose (of the conspiracy) was to leave the government without a head" is true.

John

(01-17-2018 03:11 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 09:00 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  Remember, Smoot said she told him the boat would be used that night. Was it a lie or evidence that she didn't know the plot had changed? Impossible to know for certain.

Jerry:

Those who continue to talk about the plot changing are "missing the boat". .... How much evidence do you need?

John, you think like a prosecutor explaining to a jury that there is no reasonable doubt. This is both a blessing and a curse.

There is ample evidence to show that Mary Surratt knew of the kidnapping plot. There is none to show that she knew of a murder.

Why would she have been told? In a plot such as this the less one knows the better. Your position, that if you were in for the kidnapping you knew and were in for the murder - is the same used by prosecutors in the case.

There is no actual evidence that she knew, which is what Lewis Powell said and why he bet his life by returning to her house. As prosecutor you can dismiss this with a wave of the hand but I can't.

(01-17-2018 10:45 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 03:11 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 09:00 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  Remember, Smoot said she told him the boat would be used that night. Was it a lie or evidence that she didn't know the plot had changed? Impossible to know for certain.

Jerry:

Those who continue to talk about the plot changing are "missing the boat". .... How much evidence do you need?

John, you think like a prosecutor explaining to a jury that there is no reasonable doubt. This is both a blessing and a curse.

There is ample evidence to show that Mary Surratt knew of the kidnapping plot. There is none to show that she knew of a murder.

Why would she have been told? In a plot such as this the less one knows the better. Your position, that if you were in for the kidnapping you knew and were in for the murder - is the same used by prosecutors in the case.

There is no actual evidence that she knew, which is what Lewis Powell said and why he bet his life by returning to her house. As prosecutor you can dismiss this with a wave of the hand but I can't.

Jerry:

If one starts out with a false premise, everything that follows and that is dependent on that premise will be, in some degree, false. There was no bona fide kidnapping plot, not one that involved Booth and his team anyway. The evidence that it never existed is rock solid and is based on five years of research, study, consideration of the evidence, reason and an understanding of human nature. This is not the place to recite the reasons for the conclusion. Please read Chapter 12 of Decapitating. Then read it again.

If the purpose of the Booth conspiracy was never really kidnapping, and that fact was known to its leaders, i.e. Booth, Surratt and Powell, then it was almost certainly known to its enablers, i.e. Mrs. Surratt and Dr. Mudd, as well as Booth's government and Secret Service contacts who were meeting with him, encouraging him, instructing him and, above all, financing him, all of which has ample evidence to support it. Mrs. Surratt did not have to be "told" anything. She was part of the Confederate underground going back to tavern days (1862, when her husband was postmaster) and may very well have purchased the boardinghouse pursuant to her superiors' instruction for the purpose of establishing a safe house for Confederate agents, operatives, blockade runners, etc., in Washington. As for the details that establish Mrs. Surratt's guilt in the conspiracy to kill, beyond a reasonable doubt, see pages 60-68 of Decapitating.

John

(01-17-2018 11:23 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Jerry:

If the purpose of the Booth conspiracy was never really kidnapping, and that fact was known to its leaders, i.e. Booth, Surratt and Powell, then it was almost certainly known to its enablers, i.e. Mrs. Surratt
John

John,
No need to rub my nose into your book. I do not question the evidence you have found. I'm pointing out that there is no evidence that Mrs. Suratt knew of the murder. You can't just restate your evidence and then say " it was almost certainly known to its enablers, i.e. Mrs. Surratt".

"Almost certain" means "not certain" councilor, and I agree with that.