What Was The Role of David Herold

[John Fazio]

(02-01-2013 02:08 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 01:32 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  [quote='JMadonna' pid='12201' dateline='1359741713']

If we start with the knowledge that Johnson was targeted (because without him dead, there is no reason to kill Seward, and also because of Jefferson Davis's remark upon hearing of Lincoln's death, i.e. "...if the same would have happened to Andy Johnson, the beast, the job would have been complete.."), it follows that he could in no way have been complicit in the crime. Accepting sexual favors in exchange for a pass to Richmond is dangerously close to complicity. I believe the evidence for that is quite weak.

John

I definitely agree. Johnson knew nothing of Booth's plot but Atzerodt said that Booth and Herold had seen Johnson a few days before. For what reason he doesn't say. IMO to get passes since they were able to cross the bridge.
Accepting sexual favors for political favors is a second currency in Washington and has been for a long time.

Jerry:

I know that is your thesis, because, coincidentally, I just finished re-reading portions of your book. But does the reference to Booth and Herold having gone to the Kirkwood and having "seen" Johnson truly mean that they actually met him and did business with him, or might it mean only that they had observed him from a distance, presumably to confirm his residence there, size up his m.o., etc., in preparation for the kill? Granted that the fugitives made it across the bridge, nothing was said by Cobb about passes, nor do his statments and testimony lend themselves to a supposition that passes were a part of their tranactions. My conclusion about Cobb is that:

1. General Order No. 5 was not being strictly enforced, contra Kauffman; or

2. There was foul play, i.e. Cobb's passing them was pre-arranged and paid for.

The second possibility may have more to it than is commonly supposed, because entirely too many things went Booth's way that night. (Roscoe suggests the possibility.) It is hard to believe that Booth and Herold would have approached the bridge unless they were certain they would be passed, but with no mention or suggestion of passes, I look for another reason. (What would they have done if they had been turned back because of a strict application of General Order No. 5?) The presence of mounted Confederates in the area who gallopped through Union guards without giving a password may offer a clue. There are other clues.

John

---

(02-01-2013 02:34 PM)John Stanton Wrote:  I am a loyal, long time, John Fazio fan. I read and save all that he says because some day I may need his work. If I cite his work , then you believe me. BUT, I hope I never meet him in court, and he is the prosecution.. He made an absolutely believable case out of nothing. No testimoney, no evidence, no witnesses -for or against, he even tells us when he is guessing, (when it is necessary). The jury has voted - Herold is guilty. This was no "off the cuff" article. I cannot imagine the amount of time spent researching.
THANKS, John. PS - get busy on more.

John:

We've never met (that I recall), but I know anyway that you are a great guy. Every man and woman needs a few of those in his or her life. Thank you very much for your kindness.

Please make my acqaintance at the Conference in March. I shall surely buy you a drink. I may even spring for a double.

John