A Threat To The Republic

[JMadonna]

(02-22-2019 02:18 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Gene - There are other historians who believe that General Order No. 5 had been rescinded or greatly reduced in enforcement shortly before the assassination since the war was nearly at an end. They also point out that, even during the war, the threat was always thought to come from forces outside the city entering Washington - not from those leaving the city. I don't remember that any mention is made anywhere that Booth or Herold presented passes or codes (i.e. T.B. Road). They just talked their way through.

There is no proof that the order was ever rescinded - none. Nor is there any proof that the order was greatly reduced in enforcement. Reread the order and tell me where the sentry has any discretion.

If the order was not in force it must not have been known to Stanton who sent out an APB after the assassination which did not include the Navy Yard Bridge. So either he believed the bridge was closed OR you have to believe Stanton was in on the plot and gave Booth a head start.

[L Verge]

(02-22-2019 05:40 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 02:18 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Gene - There are other historians who believe that General Order No. 5 had been rescinded or greatly reduced in enforcement shortly before the assassination since the war was nearly at an end. They also point out that, even during the war, the threat was always thought to come from forces outside the city entering Washington - not from those leaving the city. I don't remember that any mention is made anywhere that Booth or Herold presented passes or codes (i.e. T.B. Road). They just talked their way through.

There is no proof that the order was ever rescinded - none. Nor is there any proof that the order was greatly reduced in enforcement. Reread the order and tell me where the sentry has any discretion.

If the order was not in force it must not have been known to Stanton who sent out an APB after the assassination which did not include the Navy Yard Bridge. So either he believed the bridge was closed OR you have to believe Stanton was in on the plot and gave Booth a head start.

Don't shoot the messenger, Jerry. I am only reporting that other historians have a different opinion.

I don't remember what Mike Kauffman's take was on the bridge situation except that he used to say on our Booth tours that the fugitives were clearing the two forts outside of Uniontown (about two miles from the bridge) as the military telegraph reported to those outlying installations. Why not cut off communication with those forts too, if Stanton had deliberately left the so-called barn door open for the horses to escape?

Also, forces were in T.B., Piscataway, and other regions within 12 miles of the city before noon. They were at my family's door before great-grandpa went to open his store. If Stanton were aiding and abetting the felons, why not divert the forces in another direction.

[JMadonna]

(02-22-2019 09:52 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 05:40 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 02:18 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Gene - There are other historians who believe that General Order No. 5 had been rescinded or greatly reduced in enforcement shortly before the assassination since the war was nearly at an end. They also point out that, even during the war, the threat was always thought to come from forces outside the city entering Washington - not from those leaving the city. I don't remember that any mention is made anywhere that Booth or Herold presented passes or codes (i.e. T.B. Road). They just talked their way through.

There is no proof that the order was ever rescinded - none. Nor is there any proof that the order was greatly reduced in enforcement. Reread the order and tell me where the sentry has any discretion.

If the order was not in force it must not have been known to Stanton who sent out an APB after the assassination which did not include the Navy Yard Bridge. So either he believed the bridge was closed OR you have to believe Stanton was in on the plot and gave Booth a head start.

Don't shoot the messenger, Jerry. I am only reporting that other historians have a different opinion.

Not shooting at anyone but what is pure speculation on the part of others.

General Order No. 5 was actually rescinded that afternoon but since it was Good Friday, Stanton gave the war department the afternoon off for religious observation (which was why Weichman was free to give Mrs. Surratt her ride to Surrattsville) so the order was delayed until Saturday morning.

All we know about what happened on the bridge is from the testimony from the trial. All Army records from the unit guarding the bridge mysteriously disappeared so any opinion that they were not doing their job that night is pure speculation.

[L Verge]

Which unit was in charge of guarding the bridge? Sgt. Cobb was with the 3rd Massachusetts Heavy Artillery throughout his service (most of which was in D.C. to fortify the city, where he was based out of Fort Baker), but I think that the other sentries with him that night were with the 10th Regiment of the Veterans Reserve Corps. Which army records are missing?

[JMadonna]

(02-23-2019 01:38 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Which unit was in charge of guarding the bridge? Sgt. Cobb was with the 3rd Massachusetts Heavy Artillery throughout his service (most of which was in D.C. to fortify the city, where he was based out of Fort Baker), but I think that the other sentries with him that night were with the 10th Regiment of the Veterans Reserve Corps. Which army records are missing?

the 3rd Massachusetts

[RJNorton]

Jerry, it has been awhile since I read your book, but if I recall correctly, you feel Cobb was coached by Edwin Stanton as to what to say (or not say) on the witness stand during the trial. Is this mostly just your opinion, or is there solid evidence Stanton "helped" Cobb with his testimony?

[RJNorton]

Many thanks to Steve for sending this statement of Silas T. Cobb:

[JMadonna]

(02-23-2019 05:22 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Jerry, it has been awhile since I read your book, but if I recall correctly, you feel Cobb was coached by Edwin Stanton as to what to say (or not say) on the witness stand during the trial. Is this mostly just your opinion, or is there solid evidence Stanton "helped" Cobb with his testimony?

I think Cobb's statement that Steve presented is evidence of Cobb being coached. His statement is pretty close (almost word for word in some places) with the official trial transcript.

You'll notice that at the bottom of page 4 - Cobb is interrupted by whoever was coaching him to tell him that Cobb was mistaken and he would tell him what really happened. - IMO that is coaching the witness.

[L Verge]

(02-24-2019 08:57 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(02-23-2019 05:22 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Jerry, it has been awhile since I read your book, but if I recall correctly, you feel Cobb was coached by Edwin Stanton as to what to say (or not say) on the witness stand during the trial. Is this mostly just your opinion, or is there solid evidence Stanton "helped" Cobb with his testimony?

I think Cobb's statement that Steve presented is evidence of Cobb being coached. His statement is pretty close (almost word for word in some places) with the official trial transcript.

You'll notice that at the bottom of page 4 - Cobb is interrupted by whoever was coaching him to tell him that Cobb was mistaken and he would tell him what really happened. - IMO that is coaching the witness.

Interesting, but don't trial lawyers coach their clients/witnesses anyhow? And, before you yell at me, remember that the sum total of my legal knowledge is what Law and Order and Perry Mason have taught me over the years...

[RJNorton]

(02-25-2019 09:13 AM)L Verge Wrote:  remember that the sum total of my legal knowledge is what Law and Order and Perry Mason have taught me over the years...

And all you need to do now is to watch (and learn) the voir dire process on "Bull," and you'll be all set for trial!

[Rob Wick]

I'm curious as to what type of lawyer would allow evidence of witness tampering to not only be preserved, but to allow it to go into the National Archives? Not a very bright one I would guess.

Best
Rob

[JMadonna]

(02-25-2019 10:39 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  I'm curious as to what type of lawyer would allow evidence of witness tampering to not only be preserved, but to allow it to go into the National Archives? Not a very bright one I would guess.

Best
Rob

I found it curious that the questioner broke in just as Cobb was about to tell Fletcher that he needed a pass to cross the bridge.

Did the questioner tell the recorder to strike Cobb's answer from the record? The recorder just left us with "because _____" which indicates to me that an answer was given but not recorded.

Since Cobb talks about the rules being enforced for a long time it's obvious to me that he was aware of them and was going to enforce them.

[Steve]

For reference, here's a link to Cobb's testimony at the Conspiracy Trial:

https://archive.org/details/conspiracytr...r/page/250

Unfortunately, there's no date given for Cobb's statement in the images above. In it, Cobb is never asked to identify the other rider (besides Booth) who crossed the bridge before Fletcher arrived with a photograph (but had been asked to identify Booth's photograph and identify Fletcher as the third man). So, it was almost certainly taken down before Herold was photographed by Gardner on April 27th and likely before April 20th with the publishing of the wanted poster with the Brady photograph of Herold taken when he was in school.

I noticed that Cobb's statement doesn't make any notice of the other rider giving the name "Smith" as Cobb later testified at the Conspiracy Trail. Although that might be due to forgetfulness on Cobb's part, since John Fletcher testified at the conspiracy trial that Sgt. Cobb had told him that night that the other rider said his name was "Smith".

The transcript on page 4 of Cobb's statement does look like coaching or leading a witness to say what the investigator thinks happened. Also, notice on the top of page 4 that the transcriber didn't write down the exact wording of the questioner, when he suggests Cobb is mistaken about something. So, we're left to wonder if the questioner was just asking "Are you sure?" or trying to lead Cobb to something else.

Here's a section from Fletcher's testimony at the Conspiracy Trial:

I followed on until I got to the Navy-Yard Bridge; and the guard there halted me, and called for the sergeant of the guard of the heavy artillery, and he came out. I asked him if a roan horse had crossed that bridge, giving him a description of the horse, saddle, and bridle, and the man that was riding the horse. He said, "Yes: he has gone across the bridge." Said I, "Did he stay long here?" He replied, "He said that he was waiting for an acquaintance of his that was coming on; but he did not wait; and another man came riding a bay horse or a bay mare, I do not know which, right after him." Said I to the sergeant, "Did he tell you his name?" — "Yes," said he: "he said his name was Smith." I asked the sergeant if I could cross the bridge after them. He said, "Yes: you can cross the bridge; but you cannot return back." I said, "If that is so, I will not go." So I turned around, and came back to the city again.


Here's a link to Fletcher's testimony (the quote above, but his testimony begins on the previous page):

https://archive.org/details/conspiracytr...r/page/328

Fletcher testified that Cobb had told him that night that (a) the rider on his stolen roan horse, "Mr. Smith" (Herold), had crossed the bridge first followed by (b) the rider on the bay (Booth) crossing the bridge. Now memory is a tricky thing, and can be mistaken, especially in this case when it's just Fletcher trying to recall exactly what Cobb had said that night. I probably wouldn't pay this minor discrepancy in the testimony of Cobb and Fletcher much mind, except when you look at Cobb's earlier statement above he goes from describing his encounter with Booth and his bay directly into a description of his encounter with Fletcher before being "corrected" about his mistake. Like, once he started talking about Booth he naturally went straight to talking about Fletcher because that was the order he remembered it, until he was "reminded" otherwise.

Though, I can't think of any conceivable reason why the authorities would want to purposely reverse the order of Booth and Herold crossing the bridge in Cobb's testimony. If anybody has any reasonable-sounding suggestions as to why that could be, I'd love to hear them!

[JMadonna]

(02-26-2019 05:23 AM)Steve Wrote:  Though, I can't think of any conceivable reason why the authorities would want to purposely reverse the order of Booth and Herold crossing the bridge in Cobb's testimony. If anybody has any reasonable-sounding suggestions as to why that could be, I'd love to hear them!

The prosecution was trying to make certain that Cobb and Fletcher’s stories backed each other up. They desperately wanted to bury the fact that passes were required to cross the bridge after 9:00.

To do this they needed to leave the impression that Booth and Herold talked themselves across while making certain that Herold’s attorney did not challenge either man’s testimony upon cross-examination. They were successful.

That was accomplished early in Cobb’s testimony:
A. The sentry challenged them; and I advanced then to recognize them.
Q. Did you recognize them?
A. I satisfied myself that two of them were proper persons to pass, and passed them.
Q. Do you recognize either of those persons among the prisoners here?
A. No, sir.

No one asks Cobb how he was satisfied that they were proper to pass. As I pointed out earlier, the rules did not give the sentries any discretion. They were to be stopped unless they had passes. Cobb later did not positively identify Herold as the man on the roan horse;

Q. How would he compare in size with the last man on the row in the prisoner’s dock? [David E. Herold, who stood up for identification.]
A. He is very near the size, but I should think taller, although I could not tell it on the horse; and he had a lighter complexion than that man.
Q. Did you allow him to pass after that explanation?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What became of the other man?
A. The other man I turned back. He did not seem to have any business on the other side that I considered sufficient to pass him.

This testimony was sufficient to avoid any possible cross examination by Herold’s lawyer. Cobb never positively identified Herold AND even referred to him as “Smith”. Nothing he said would add or detract from Herold’s guilt or innocence as far as his attorney could determine, so it was allowed into the record unchallenged.

Cobb’s statements were true (as far as we know) but purposefully limited by the prosecution. Cobb never explains what criteria he used to pass them.

[RJNorton]

Many thanks to Steve for sending these articles. Steve writes:

"One is an article from the 15 April 1964 Chicago Tribune that reprints a 21 April 1865 letter from Frederick Demond to his brother, George, about guarding the Navy-Yard bridge and who claims to have been guarding the opposite end of the bridge from Cobb the night of the assassination. The other article is a letter written by Demond and reprinted in the 26 Dec. 1897 Boston Globe. The versions are a little contradictory in that the 1865 letter claims that the men (presumably Booth) were the first people to inform him that the President had been shot. That strikes me as an incredibly stupid thing for Booth to say if he wanted to get away. I'm not sure if Demond's word/accuracy can be trusted or not, even if the letter was written only a week after the assassination."