The Case For Mrs. Surratt

[wpbinzel]

(10-02-2016 04:01 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Was Mary telling the truth when she said she did not recognize Powell (dressed as a laborer)? How bad was her eyesight? How close was she to Powell when she denied knowing him? (Kate Larson estimates three feet - is this about right?) I think all books mention Powell had previously been at the boardinghouse, but not all mention Mary had actually seen Powell in a different place as she had visited him at the Herndon House.

Roger, thanks to the writings of Laurie Verge, I start from the position that Mary Surratt was no shrinking violet and probably a lot shrewder than we generally give her credit. Most of the conspirators had come through her boardinghouse door. Consequently, even if Booth did not inform her of the details of the plot, Mrs. Surratt had inside information. Unless she was "simple-minded," by the evening of Monday, April 17th, she likely had more than an inkling about the identity of Booth's accomplices. It seems probable that she had a pretty good idea that Powell was Seward's attacker. So, other than Booth himself, the last person she wanted to see in her house at that moment was Lewis Powell. In my opinion, Mrs. Surratt knew who Powell was and what he had done. In an effort to avoid being associated with him, she resorted to the tactic she used throughout her other interrogations; she lied.

For that reason, I believe that the defense's arguments about Mrs. Surratt's eyesight, the lighting in the house, Powell's "disguise," etc., were all red herrings.

---

I should add a tip of my USA Ryder Cup cap to Kate Larson as well.