John Fazio Interviewed

[richard petersen]

Finished reading Mr.Fazio's book. My collection of Lincoln Assassination books started in 1968 when I visited Ford's Theater and purchased Twenty Days. Since then I have many of the books listed in Mr.Fazio's Bibliography.
After all these years this is what I considered new learning.
I never thought of what Booth/Herold would have done if they were denied crossing the bridge by Silas Cobb. If they were not assured of crossing what would have been their alternate plan?
I always accepted that Stewart was a few feet away from capturing Booth. Was not aware that Ritterspaugh existed. Certainly seemed Stewart embellished the story.
Thanks to Mr. Fazio and all who provide excellent commentaries for the symposium.

[Steve]

(05-04-2020 06:42 PM)Gene C Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 03:41 PM)Steve Wrote:  So if you think about it in a way, Louis Weichmann is a lot like Whittaker Chambers.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw some similarities with Whittacker Chambers
https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussi...h#pid76270
Post #5

After reading up more on the Hiss case, I take back the Weichmann - Chambers comparison. Chambers lied before the grand jury and HUAC. It was only the possibility of himself being tried for perjury which made Chambers confess that he himself was a Soviet spy and reveal that he had more in-depth knowledge of Hiss's spying for the Soviets and documents.

Weichmann was nothing like that, his testimonies were consistent. Though some people, like Surratt claimed that Weichmann was spying for the Confederates in his job at the War Department. If Weichmann was telling the truth about not spying for the Confederates, I have to figure that maybe he was a "blind source" (ie. somebody who doesn't realize they're providing Intel to a spy) for Surratt.

---

As for crossing the bridge, if they weren't waived maybe try to shoot their way over the bridge? I don't see them surviving the guards on the other end though. Booth and the conspirators don't come off as A-list criminals. So I'm guessing they had no plan-B

[RJNorton]

(05-26-2020 06:36 PM)richard petersen Wrote:  I always accepted that Stewart was a few feet away from capturing Booth. Was not aware that Ritterspaugh existed.

If not for Ritterspaugh (Rittersback), I wonder if Spangler would even have been tried.

[Dave Taylor]

(05-27-2020 04:48 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  If not for Ritterspaugh (Rittersback), I wonder if Spangler would even have been tried.

Oh, he would have, Roger. I know that because when they started the trial, the prosecution was unaware that Spangler had slapped Rittersbach. In fact, when Rittersbach testified for the first time on May 19th, he made no mention of the occurrence. It wasn't until after he had testified and had been released from prison that the prosecution learned of the story and recalled him to testify about it.

Here's an early look at what I've written regarding Rittersbach's return to the stand on May 30th:

"Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt stated that he wished to call to the stand Jacob Rittersbach so that he may give testimony against Edman Spangler. Rittersbach had previously testified on May 19th but, according to Holt, the government had become aware of new facts relating to this witness that they wished to bring out. Since the prosecution had closed their cases against the individual conspirators, Holt sought permission from the Commission to re-examine him. Thomas Ewing, Spangler’s lawyer, stated that he had no objection to the request.

Jacob Rittersbach, a stagehand at Ford’s Theatre, was recalled to the stand for the prosecution. He testified that he was on the same side of the stage as Edman Spangler when Lincoln was shot. Rittersbach stated he ran to try to stop John Wilkes Booth from exiting the back door of Ford’s but that Booth struck at him with his knife, causing him to jump back. He claimed to have been the first one to open the back door after Booth but the assassin was already on his horse riding away. It’s worth noting that while Rittersbach claimed he ran after Booth and only backed away because Booth brandished his knife, no other witnesses ever claimed to have seen him doing this. On the contrary, Major Stewart, who had testified on May 20th, was adamant that he was the one who opened the back door of Ford’s first after Booth had passed through. After coming back inside the theater, Rittersbach met back up with Spangler. According to Rittersbach, Edman Spangler slapped him across the mouth and said, “Don’t say which way he went!” Rittersbach testified that he had not said anything to Spangler before being slapped. When he asked Spangler what he meant by slapping him, Spangler allegedly replied with “For God’s sake, shut up!”[12] This testimony by Jacob Rittersbach would prove to be the most damaging to Edman Spangler’s case but it also suffers from a number of issues. In statements Rittersbach gave authorities on April 18th and an undated one in the papers of JAG Holt, he made no mention of Spangler having slapped him. He also failed to mention the incident when he testified on May 19th. It was only after Rittersbach had testified and had been released from prison that he told a detective about it. That is what led him to be recalled on this date. According to Rittersbach the only people he told about the slap were the detective and James J. Gifford, his boss at Ford’s Theatre. However, when James Gifford took the stand on the next day, he denied Rittersbach ever told him about the slap, only that he desired to amend his statement. At the same time, two of Rittersbach’s coworkers at Ford’s Theatre, Louis Carland and James Lamb, would later testify that Rittersbach told them about the slap in the hours following the assassination. Rittersbach told them that Spangler had slapped him because he had stated the man who shot the president was Booth. However in his testimony today, Rittersbach was asked by Thomas Ewing, "What did you say to him first, before he [slapped you and] said that to you" to which Rittersbach replied "I did not say anything to him."[13] In addition, Rittersbach testified today that he had not heard the name Booth until after he had been slapped by Spangler. In the version of the incident Rittersbach conveyed to Carland and Lamb, Spangler did not state, “Don’t say which way he went,” after slapping Rittersbach but rather, “You don’t know who it is. It may be Mr. Booth, or it may be somebody else.”[14] This alternate language may demonstrate a man not wanting a friend of his to be unfairly slandered by baseless accusations before the true facts are known. It is important to note that no one witnessed the slap that Rittersbach belatedly testified about. Carland and Lamb only testified to what Rittersbach had told them. The truth of what really occurred between Rittersbach and Spangler in the moments after the assassination will likely never be known."

Interestingly, the newspapers noted the effect Rittersbach's new testimony had on Spangler:
"Spangler listened with close interest to this testimony, and shook his head in denial of the witness’s words very noticeably.”[58]

[Tom Bogar]

I second what Dave has written (as I often do). Rittersbach was without question the person most responsible for Spangler's conviction, a hypothesis I laid out in Backstage, but which Dave has summarized nicely.

[JMadonna]

(05-26-2020 06:36 PM)richard petersen Wrote:  I never thought of what Booth/Herold would have done if they were denied crossing the bridge by Silas Cobb. If they were not assured of crossing what would have been their alternate plan?

Richard,
They were assured of crossing the bridge. It's explained in the book "A threat to the republic" and through countless posts by me on this website.

[RJNorton]

Richard, you have to read the book to get all the details, but please see Jerry's post here:

https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussi...n#pid12370

[wpbinzel]

Roger, I do not believe that you get enough credit. While I may not agree with all things posted, I very much respect the posting and the time and effort of the author to post it. Our job, as historians (ie, ones dedicated to the study of history) is to ascertain the facts and interpret the past as best as we are able. As we all know, even eyewitnesses to events (such as Lincoln's assassination) differ in their version of what actually happened, so we must in our best effort construe their recording of it and attempt to make a determination of fact from fiction of things that happened 150+ years ago. In short, it is an impossible task, but we try, again, as best as we are able. That is the value of this Forum. The research, thinking, analysis, etc., that is presented and shared on all things Lincoln never ceases to impress me. And that you, Mr. Norton, created and maintain this website that makes this possible, puts all of us in your debt. Thank you.

[RJNorton]

Thank you very much, Bill. I always hope the forum can be a useful resource for all folks, including students. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Jerry, I am one who believes his opinion on the passes is very interesting.

[richard petersen]

(05-31-2020 12:17 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(05-26-2020 06:36 PM)richard petersen Wrote:  I never thought of what Booth/Herold would have done if they were denied crossing the bridge by Silas Cobb. If they were not assured of crossing what would have been their alternate plan?

Richard,
They were assured of crossing the bridge. It's explained in the book "A threat to the republic" and through countless posts by me on this website.

Thanks Jerry, just ordered your book.