I received the following inquiry today that might interest some of you:

Ms. Verge,

I recently heard Professor Jonathan Laurie (retired - Rutgers) assert at the North Jersey Civil War Round Table that John Surratt had obtained valuable confederate records and traded those records in a back-room deal for an acquittal (actually a hung jury) at his civil trial.

I have been unable to locate any materials supporting this assertion.

Have you heard of this theory?

Can you point me to any sources on this subject?

Needless to say, I quickly posted it on the grapevine, and others were as skeptical as I. I'll be pursuing this (hopefully with the former Rutgers professor) once this week's Surratt Conference is over -- speaking of which, 120 registrants as of Friday plus a dozen more coming for the banquet to catch up on gossip about The Women Who Loved John Wilkes Booth, courtesy of author E. Lawrence Abel.

I have never heard of this, and my initial reaction is to be skeptical. I can understand how the attorneys and judge might know of such a thing, but how would the jurors know? And the war was over in 1867 - what could be so valuable among Confederate records that the outcome of a trial would somehow be directly effected?

Don't know about Surratt but wish I could attend the Booth's women seminar!

Like Roger I too am skeptical. By 1867 no one cared about the Confederacy or any records John Surratt may or may not have had.

My unreliable sources indicate John B Jones (author of A Rebel War Clerk's Diary) downloaded several emails and incriminating documents on a thumb drive before deleting everything on his and Judah Benjamin's computer's server. Concerned that they might fall into the wrong hands, and hounded by Lafayette Baker's spies, he hid them in neighbor Charlie Brown's pumpkin patch in his back yard garden.

According to undisclosed sources, they were uncovered by former spy team and member of the secret society Knights of the Silver Triangle, Andrew Porter and Chambers Whittacker. To avoid detection, they were rewritten in secret code in the form of an unpublished trashy novel titled, 40 Shades of Confederate Gray. Sold to the Surratt team of lawyers, their secret chief counsel , Attorney P. Mason Matlock, advised them to not use the information in Surratt's trial.

Years later John Surratt sold the papers to an Oklahoma painter named David George. George, a retired actor living under an assumed name hoped to turn the book into a play. After editing the book for the theater, he rented the Enid Opra House with his production now titled, The Spy Who Loved Me, only to die from an apparent suicide. The play forgotten until recently discovered in a box of old dishes at a weekend flea market in West Virgina.

Here's where it gets interesting..... Hate to stop now, this is running a bit long, and there is a suspicious looking black Chevy Suburban driving up and down my street.
More to come,

OMG, Gene I almost wet myself reading that not to mention almost spewing my tea all over my work computer.

Thank you Gene!

(04-01-2019 04:17 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  I have never heard of this, and my initial reaction is to be skeptical. I can understand how the attorneys and judge might know of such a thing, but how would the jurors know? And the war was over in 1867 - what could be so valuable among Confederate records that the outcome of a trial would somehow be directly effected?

My first thoughts were: Why didn't John use those supposed documents to assist his mother and himself in 1865, when he was dealing with a military tribunal (and Holt and Stanton) who might be more willing to haggle? And, in 1867, how do you haggle with a civilian jury?

---

(04-01-2019 07:00 AM)Rsmyth Wrote:  Don't know about Surratt but wish I could attend the Booth's women seminar!

Next best thing is to buy Ernie's book...

---

(04-01-2019 10:10 AM)Gene C Wrote:  My unreliable sources indicate John B Jones (author of A Rebel War Clerk's Diary) downloaded several emails and incriminating documents on a thumb drive before deleting everything on his and Judah Benjamin's computer's server. Concerned that they might fall into the wrong hands, and hounded by Lafayette Baker's spies, he hid them in neighbor Charlie Brown's pumpkin patch in his back yard garden.

According to undisclosed sources, they were uncovered by former spy team and member of the secret society Knights of the Silver Triangle, Andrew Porter and Chambers Whittacker. To avoid detection, they were rewritten in secret code in the form of an unpublished trashy novel titled, 40 Shades of Confederate Gray. Sold to the Surratt team of lawyers, their secret chief counsel , Attorney P. Mason Matlock, advised them to not use the information in Surratt's trial.

Years later John Surratt sold the papers to an Oklahoma painter named David George. George, a retired actor living under an assumed name hoped to turn the book into a play. After editing the book for the theater, he rented the Enid Opra House with his production now titled, The Spy Who Loved Me, only to die from an apparent suicide. The play forgotten until recently discovered in a box of old dishes at a weekend flea market in West Virgina.

Here's where it gets interesting..... Hate to stop now, this is running a bit long, and there is a suspicious looking black Chevy Suburban driving up and down my street.
More to come,

Love it, Gene! And I think Ed Steers may be writing a sequel to your work. I floated this theory to some of the Baker Street Irregulars, and Ed's response was:

Dear Laurie,

These alleged documents are obviously stashed away in the Neff-Gutteridge Collection at ISU, and exist only as typescript copies of the originals, which were then destroyed because pigeons roosted on them. As you can see, there is an answer for every mystery.

Ed

---

If we are lucky enough to see light at the end of the Mueller Report tunnel, and if another report will finally get done on those missing emails of Hillary's, maybe we can convince the team of Pelosi and Schumer to call for a belated investigation of these claims? Since it seems that the media will pick up on anything these days, maybe we can milk a little publicity out of this. Gene, insert your favorite emoji here - I just can't bring myself to do it after all these years...

Quote:Years later John Surratt sold the papers to an Oklahoma painter named David George. George, a retired actor living under an assumed name hoped to turn the book into a play. After editing the book for the theater, he rented the Enid Opra House with his production now titled, The Spy Who Loved Me, only to die from an apparent suicide. The play forgotten until recently discovered in a box of old dishes at a weekend flea market in West Virgina.

Gene.

Just a couple of minor flaws in your thesis. The play was actually titled "The Emperor's New Clothes" and the reason it was never produced was that all the actors and actresses had ten days (not twelve) of hair and fingernail growth that just grossed audiences out.

Best
Rob

(04-01-2019 03:17 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  

Quote:Years later John Surratt sold the papers to an Oklahoma painter named David George. George, a retired actor living under an assumed name hoped to turn the book into a play. After editing the book for the theater, he rented the Enid Opra House with his production now titled, The Spy Who Loved Me, only to die from an apparent suicide. The play forgotten until recently discovered in a box of old dishes at a weekend flea market in West Virgina.

Gene.

Just a couple of minor flaws in your thesis. The play was actually titled "The Emperor's New Clothes" and the reason it was never produced was that all the actors and actresses had ten days (not twelve) of hair and fingernail growth that just grossed audiences out.

Best
Rob

Oh, Rob, please don't awaken that sleeping dog again -- and I don't mean Fido...

(04-01-2019 04:17 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  I have never heard of this, and my initial reaction is to be skeptical. I can understand how the attorneys and judge might know of such a thing, but how would the jurors know? And the war was over in 1867 - what could be so valuable among Confederate records that the outcome of a trial would somehow be directly effected?

I have to agree with Roger's reasoning above on both counts.

In the early decades of the 20th century there were cases of "courtroom rings" in Massachusetts where District Attorneys would accept bribes from defendants in order to "throw" cases against them:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Y-KLl1...22&f=false

But looking at the transcript, it sure doesn't look like the prosecution was trying to purposely loose the case against Surratt in 1867 to me.

(03-31-2019 08:27 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Needless to say, I quickly posted it on the grapevine, and others were as skeptical as I. I'll be pursuing this (hopefully with the former Rutgers professor) once this week's Surratt Conference is over -- speaking of which, 120 registrants as of Friday plus a dozen more coming for the banquet to catch up on gossip about The Women Who Loved John Wilkes Booth, courtesy of author E. Lawrence Abel.

Good luck with the conference Laurie, wish I could be there!

Me too!
Wish I could be there, you have a great line up of speakers.

(04-01-2019 04:17 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  I have never heard of this, and my initial reaction is to be skeptical. I can understand how the attorneys and judge might know of such a thing, but how would the jurors know? And the war was over in 1867 - what could be so valuable among Confederate records that the outcome of a trial would somehow be directly effected?

In an effort to get caught up on a number of threads, I read this last evening and agree with Roger. I think the result of Surratt, Jr.'s trial was much more about a botched effort on the part of the prosecution and who was on the jury. There is a great throw-away line in The Unwritten History of the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln by Richard M. Smoot. Smoot claimed to have sold his 15-passenger boat to John Surratt, Jr. in 1864 for $250 (about $3,800 in today's dollars), presumably to transport a captured Abraham Lincoln across the Potomac. Seeking payment for the boat, Smoot also claimed to have visited the Surratt boarding house on the night of the assassination. With regard to the civilian trial of Surratt, Smoot noted that one of the jurors who voted for acquittal was Columbus Alexander, his wife's uncle. It seems unlikely that Alexander would have voted to convict the man who purchased the boat from his niece's husband under any circumstance. See: Randal Berry, ed., Shall We Gather at the River (2009), p. 15.