Where was John Surratt on April 14, 1865 ?

[loetar44]

(03-12-2017 03:05 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Kees, do you have Kate Larson's Assassin's Accomplice? She feels Susan Jackson was confused and explains on pp. 98-99. Another author who feels Susan Jackson was confused is Bill Richter in Last Confederate Heroes. Please see the posts on this page.

Roger,
I’m sure Kate Larson's book is a valuable resource, but I have not read it. IMO Susan Jackson mistakenly said that three men came to Surratt’s house after the assassination, late Saturday morning. These men were Weichmann, Holohan and James McDevitt; Surratt not among them. But on June 18, 1867 she testified that she saw Mrs. Surratt (between 8 and 9 o'clock pm) and her son in the dining room of Surratt’s house on April 14, 1865. Did she retract this statement too? Part of her testimony is as follows:

Q. After that, on that evening, will you tell us whether you saw the prisoner here ?
Witness. That one sitting over there? (pointing to the prisoner.)
Mr. Pierrepont. Yes.
A. Yes, sir; I have seen him in the dining-room.
Q. Who was with him ?
A. His mother was with him.
Q. What did his mother say to you ?
A, I do not know.
Q. Had you ever seen him before ?
A. No, sir ; I had never seen him before.
Q. How long had you lived in the house ?
A. I had been there three weeks.
Q. What did his mother say ?
A. She told me that was her son.
Q. What else did she say to him, or about him ?
A. She did not say anything else. When I was gathering up some clothes to put in the wash, I asked if they were for Mr. Weichman, and she said no, they were for her son.

---

(03-12-2017 10:48 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Kees, Roger, John, Laurie and Gene:

This is one of the more intractable mysteries of the war years. In my judgment, we are more likely to arrive at the truth, not by hanging our hats on this or that item of evidence, but by thinking of the matter globally. I say that because the evidence is conflicting, especially anything coming from the mouth or pen of Surratt, whose lies rolled off his lips like water off a duck's back. He told at least three different versions of his whereabouts between April 6 and 18, probably with the express purpose of confusing everyone, then and for all time. Let us, rather, look at the forest rather than the trees.

The 13 witnesses who put him Washington cannot be ignored, especially the better, more convincing ones.

John

John,

I totally agree with you. Surratt was the most unreliable man re. his statements; and not all the testimonies of the 13 witnesses who placed Surratt in DC on April 14, 1865 can be false! But it's my opinion that we will never know the truth.

[Gene C]

If Surratt was in Washington on the 14th, what did he actually do?
Follow Grant on the train, then get off and head for Elmira?
What time did that train leave Washington?

[RJNorton]

(03-13-2017 08:12 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  Did she retract this statement too?

On p. 157 of Thomas R. Turner's "Beware the People Weeping" the author writes, "Susan Jackson later contradicted her statements during John Surratt's trial in 1867."

I do not know what Dr. Turner is referring to when he writes this; as I read through Susan Jackson's testimony I don't see the contradiction. Does anyone know what Dr. Turner is referring to?

(03-13-2017 08:48 AM)Gene C Wrote:  If Surratt was in Washington on the 14th, what did he actually do?
Follow Grant on the train, then get off and head for Elmira?
What time did that train leave Washington?

If he were indeed the man calling time at Ford's as Dye said then he could not have been on the train. I think the train departed at 6 P.M.

Here is what it says about the Grants' train trip in Jim Bishop's book:

6 P.M. Leave Washington City
7:25 P.M Arrive Baltimore
12:00 P.M. Arrive Philadelphia

Change Trains

6:00 A.M. Leave Philadelphia
7:00 A.M. Arrive Burlington

[Gene C]

The travel time from Philadelphia to Burlington (VT?) doesn't seem right.
According to MapQuest it's about 370 miles.

If it's Burlington NJ (on the way to NY City), that doesn't help him get to Elmira or Montreal any faster.

If John is trying to have an alibi of being in Elmira, I don't see how he could possibly be in Elmira and then Washington (or visa versa) in a 24 hour period.
Is it possible his job was to assassinate Johnson, but when Grant shows up in Washington, he gets assigned to kill him instead and Atzerodt gets assigned to Johnson?

With that scenario, John is on a train headed back north, and possibly no intention of killing Grant.
Since the train doesn't leave Philadelphia until 6AM it's possible this is when and where he hears that Lincoln has been shot. Now what would you do in his shoes?

I don't know enough to speculate further, but you know enough that within another 24 hours, it's very likely everyone is going to be looking for you.

[RJNorton]

It's Burlington, N.J.

[L Verge]

James O. Hall did extensive research on train schedules, etc. many years ago. If I remember correctly, he could not find a situation where Surratt could have made the trek.

[brtmchl]

Copy and pasted from website referenced below with identical wording from Assassination of Lincoln: a history of the great conspiracy, trial of the conspirators by a military commission, and a review of the trial of John H. Surratt
by Thomas Mealey Harris

"Surratt himself told his old acquaintance, Henry Benjamin St. Marie, with whom he renewed his acquaintanceship in the ranks of the Papal Zouaves at Velletri, in Italy, that he left Washington early on the morning of the 15th of April, disguised as an English tourist; and that he had a very hard time to make his escape. As the trains leaving Washington for Baltimore on the morning of the 15th were thoroughly scrutinized by the police before being permitted to leave,it is uncertain whether Surratt's disguise sufficed to get him through, or whether he went a part or all of the way to Baltimore on horseback. There was some evidence on this trial tending to the conclusion that he had escaped from the city on horseback."

When they reached Quebec Father La Pierre requested Dr. McMillen to let Surratt stay in his room until after the vessel should have sailed. The vessel being now on her way, and in British waters, the fugitive ventured forth, and naturally sought the company of the surgeon of the vessel in whose care he had been placed, and whom he regarded as his friend. He scanned closely every passenger he met, that phantom of a detective being ever present to his imagination. He sees a gentleman whom he takes to be an American. He seeks his friend McMillen, and discloses to him his fears, saying: "I think that man is an American detective." Upon being asked by the doctor what he had done that he should be afraid of a detective, he replied: "If you knew all the things I have done, it would make you stare." The doctor reassured him, by reminding him that he was on board a British ship sailing on British waters, and that he had nothing to fear from an American detective. Surratt then drew a small four-barrelled revolver from his vest pocket, and remarked: "I don't care; this will settle him." The doctor now began to feel a great interest in his charge, arising from the suspicion that he was John H. Surratt. The voyage across the Atlantic occupied nine or ten days. The fugitive was so full of his terrible secret that he could not keep quiet.
Every day he sought opportunities to converse with the doctor privately, and at every interview the history of his crimes kept leaking out. Surratt told McMillen that he received a letter from Booth at Montreal, in the beginning of the week of the assassination, which was written in New York, calling him to Washington at once, as it had become necessary to change their plans and to act quickly. He started at once, and telegraphed Booth at New York City from Elmira, but found that he had already gone to Washington. In regard to his escape from Washington after the assassination, he related all of the incidents that have already been given in regard to his experience at St. Albans, the loss of his handkerchief, his hasty departure from that place, etc., etc.
Upon sighting the coast of Ireland he exclaimed, "Here is a foreign country at last! I only wish that I may live two years to go back to the United States and serve Andy Johnson as we served Lincoln."
When the "Peruvian" was about to land her passengers and mail at an Irish port, Surratt sent for McMillen, and upon the latter expressing surprise at finding him dressed, and prepared to land, saying that "he thought he had concluded to go on with them to Liverpool," Surratt replied, "that he had thought the matter over carefully, and had concluded that it would be safer for him to land there, as it was then nearly midnight." McMillen then said to him, "You have been telling me a great many things, and I have come to the conclusion that the name by which you were introduced to me is not your true name. Will you be kind enough to tell me who you are?" The fugitive then whispered in his ear, "I am Surratt."

https://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/gute...2855-h.htm 213-225

Assassination of Lincoln: a history of the great conspiracy, trial of the conspirators by a military commission, and a review of the trial of John H. Surratt by Thomas Mealey Harris pg 218-225

Does anyone have any additional information to compare these accounts too?

In John Surratt: Rebel, Lincoln Conspirator, Fugitive By Frederick Hatch, both of these men during testimony are describes as men of bad character. Going as far as implying that McMillan made up the story for the reward.

[L Verge]

(03-13-2017 04:32 PM)brtmchl Wrote:  Copy and pasted from website referenced below with identical wording from Assassination of Lincoln: a history of the great conspiracy, trial of the conspirators by a military commission, and a review of the trial of John H. Surratt
by Thomas Mealey Harris

"Surratt himself told his old acquaintance, Henry Benjamin St. Marie, with whom he renewed his acquaintanceship in the ranks of the Papal Zouaves at Velletri, in Italy, that he left Washington early on the morning of the 15th of April, disguised as an English tourist; and that he had a very hard time to make his escape. As the trains leaving Washington for Baltimore on the morning of the 15th were thoroughly scrutinized by the police before being permitted to leave,it is uncertain whether Surratt's disguise sufficed to get him through, or whether he went a part or all of the way to Baltimore on horseback. There was some evidence on this trial tending to the conclusion that he had escaped from the city on horseback."

When they reached Quebec Father La Pierre requested Dr. McMillen to let Surratt stay in his room until after the vessel should have sailed. The vessel being now on her way, and in British waters, the fugitive ventured forth, and naturally sought the company of the surgeon of the vessel in whose care he had been placed, and whom he regarded as his friend. He scanned closely every passenger he met, that phantom of a detective being ever present to his imagination. He sees a gentleman whom he takes to be an American. He seeks his friend McMillen, and discloses to him his fears, saying: "I think that man is an American detective." Upon being asked by the doctor what he had done that he should be afraid of a detective, he replied: "If you knew all the things I have done, it would make you stare." The doctor reassured him, by reminding him that he was on board a British ship sailing on British waters, and that he had nothing to fear from an American detective. Surratt then drew a small four-barrelled revolver from his vest pocket, and remarked: "I don't care; this will settle him." The doctor now began to feel a great interest in his charge, arising from the suspicion that he was John H. Surratt. The voyage across the Atlantic occupied nine or ten days. The fugitive was so full of his terrible secret that he could not keep quiet.
Every day he sought opportunities to converse with the doctor privately, and at every interview the history of his crimes kept leaking out. Surratt told McMillen that he received a letter from Booth at Montreal, in the beginning of the week of the assassination, which was written in New York, calling him to Washington at once, as it had become necessary to change their plans and to act quickly. He started at once, and telegraphed Booth at New York City from Elmira, but found that he had already gone to Washington. In regard to his escape from Washington after the assassination, he related all of the incidents that have already been given in regard to his experience at St. Albans, the loss of his handkerchief, his hasty departure from that place, etc., etc.
Upon sighting the coast of Ireland he exclaimed, "Here is a foreign country at last! I only wish that I may live two years to go back to the United States and serve Andy Johnson as we served Lincoln."
When the "Peruvian" was about to land her passengers and mail at an Irish port, Surratt sent for McMillen, and upon the latter expressing surprise at finding him dressed, and prepared to land, saying that "he thought he had concluded to go on with them to Liverpool," Surratt replied, "that he had thought the matter over carefully, and had concluded that it would be safer for him to land there, as it was then nearly midnight." McMillen then said to him, "You have been telling me a great many things, and I have come to the conclusion that the name by which you were introduced to me is not your true name. Will you be kind enough to tell me who you are?" The fugitive then whispered in his ear, "I am Surratt."

https://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/gute...2855-h.htm 213-225

Assassination of Lincoln: a history of the great conspiracy, trial of the conspirators by a military commission, and a review of the trial of John H. Surratt by Thomas Mealey Harris pg 218-225

Does anyone have any additional information to compare these accounts too?

In John Surratt: Rebel, Lincoln Conspirator, Fugitive By Frederick Hatch, both of these men during testimony are describes as men of bad character. Going as far as implying that McMillan made up the story for the reward.

I would not trust the testimony of Henri de St. Marie any farther than I could throw a baby grand piano! He was clearly out to get any reward money for the capture and conviction of Surratt. I don't believe that researchers have ever put much stock in Harris's version of the events either.

My personal opinion is that anyone connected to the federal government, the military court, or seeking a share of any reward would say (and later write) anything to further their insistence that the conspirators were all totally evil - and that extended to the Confederate high command (and I'm one who wishes we could make that definite tie) as well as the Catholic Church.

[RJNorton]

(03-13-2017 11:51 AM)L Verge Wrote:  James O. Hall did extensive research on train schedules, etc. many years ago. If I remember correctly, he could not find a situation where Surratt could have made the trek.

Despite Mr. Hall's expertise, Michael Shein (in his book entitled John Surratt: The Lincoln Assassin Who Got Away) writes that he found a way it could be done. If I am reading the book correctly Shein says Surratt could have traveled from Elmira to Williamsport, then to Sunbury, then to Baltimore, then to Washington arriving as early as 5:45 A.M. on April 14th.

Kees....in John's book: John does a terrific job of poking holes in Rhodes' testimony on pp. 187-188.

[loetar44]

Laurie (and others), I don’t know what exactly to believe. It's fairly easy to discount any testimony as unreliable or untrustworthy. It’s fairly easy too to portray a witness as a person who is purposely telling a lie hunting for reward money, or that he/she has a criminal past and can’t be trusted. It’s also fairly easy to debunk a testimony by saying that a witness is simply wrong, or that his memory failed, or that he/she testified under (enormous) pressure or fear, or that the witness was bribed, or that he committed perjury, or that a testimony is completely bogus, etc., etc. However we have:

- 8 witnesses who testified they were sure that John Surratt was in DC on April 14, 1865
- 4 witnesses who said that they saw a man resembling John Surratt in DC on that day
- 1 witness who said that he saw a man on horseback resembling Surratt in DC in the early morning on the 15th, informing if it gave trouble to pass the pickets (was he leaving town?)
- the testimony of Henri de St. Marie that Surratt himself told him that he left Washington for Baltimore on the morning of the 15th (by train or on horseback?)
- Richard Smoot visited on the 12th Surratt’s boarding house; Mary whispered to him that John Surratt would most likely there on the 14th (John Fazio “Decapitating”, p. 45)
- Booth told Atzerodt that John Surratt was in Washington
- Nobody knows for sure were John Surratt exactly was between 6 and 18 April 1865

What I want to say (again) is: is it believable that ALL testimonies and accounts are NOT true? Okay you can believe that, but it is probable that some are true! So, my conclusion is: you can ignore some testimonies, but not all. Even if ONLY ONE is true John H. Surratt Jr. was in Washington D.C. on April 14, 1865.

Roger, thanks ! It seems possible that John Surratt arrived in DC at 5:45 A.M. on April 14th. After reading “Decapitating” p. 187-188, and kudo’s to John Fazio, it is apparent that Rhodes was lying. But why would he have done that?

[RJNorton]

(03-14-2017 08:53 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  After reading “Decapitating” p. 187-188, and kudo’s to John Fazio, it is apparent that Rhodes was lying. But why would he have done that?

Great question, Kees! I do not know.

The bottom line for me remains the same (I have asked this before): if John Surratt were in Washington why was he given such a simple assignment (calling the time at Ford's)? Why was he not sent to kill Johnson, Grant, or Stanton? It just seems strange to me that Surratt would not be given a government official to assassinate. Why would Booth go with the unreliable Atzerodt if Surratt were available to do the job?

[Gene C]

If we are going to mention trustworthy witnesses, we can rule out Surratt.
Surratt is not likely to tell anyone (except we know he had a big mouth - ex. Rockville Lecture) but he's still not likely to say something that might incriminate him to the Lincoln Assassination. We know he will brag about being a courier and the Lincoln kidnapping plot, but not the assassination plot. We know he blames his friends and those who were hiding him about not telling him about his mothers situation, and they may have not have known how truly desperate her situation was. He's between a rock and a hard place regarding his mother, but he put himself there (and his mother too). He naturally holds some bitterness towards those responsible (as he see's it) for his mothers death.
If he says anything about being involved in the assassination, it taints his mother also. By not admitting that, he leaves just a little more room for those claiming his mother's innocence.

I conclude by some of this, he wasn't in Elmira on April 14, or he would have done a better job with his claim that he was there. Did Edwin Lee verify he was sent to Elmira? (that doesn't mean he was there on April 14)
If only he had stolen a motel towel or one of those little bars of soap to prove he was there.

[brtmchl]

(03-14-2017 09:21 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 08:53 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  After reading “Decapitating” p. 187-188, and kudo’s to John Fazio, it is apparent that Rhodes was lying. But why would he have done that?

Great question, Kees! I do not know.

The bottom line for me remains the same (I have asked this before): if John Surratt were in Washington why was he given such a simple assignment (calling the time at Ford's)? Why was he not sent to kill Johnson, Grant, or Stanton? It just seems strange to me that Surratt would not be given a government official to assassinate. Why would Booth go with the unreliable Atzerodt if Surratt were available to do the job?

By reading Dye's testimony, One could assume John Surratt was in charge. Or at least coordinating with a group. Calling out the time, Booth waiting to enter Ford's Theatre until Surratt calls 10 past 10. The low villainous man leaving ( to go kill the Vice President ). Surratt continually walking up H street possibly to signal or relay a message to someone or to receive a message or signal from someone.

Makes for a fun conspiracy theory.

[L Verge]

I suspect that we are doing the same thing that all those people did in 1865 and 1867 - reading between the lines and making assumptions in order to sway people to our way of thinking (pro-Surratt story or anti-Surratt story)...

[HerbS]

I feel he was on his way to Elmira,NY-then on to Canandaigua,NY!My opinion and good research!