Mask For Treason

[mikegriffith1]

(12-03-2018 07:27 PM)L Verge Wrote:  "Since no one reported seeing Booth with a field glass after his alleged stop at Surrattsville, he either lost it somehow or simply left it at the tavern. Jones didn't see it with him. Nor did Cox. Nor did anyone else who claimed to have seen him during his flight after Surrattsville.

"I'm not at all sure that Booth had a field glass. We only have Weichmann and Lloyd's direct claims that he did. We have no reliable statements from Herold or Mary Surratt about this issue."

I don't remember seeing where anyone was questioned about the field glasses. Please cite me the source for Jones and Cox SAYING that they had not seen them. I already gave you my source for the Garretts seeing the field glasses at their house and for Richard Garrett telling his sister-in-law to get them out of there - which she did by sending them to her family's home. And, that is where they were retrieved by the second wave of troops in Caroline County.

There is a description of them with markings differentiating them from British manufacture vs. French manufacture, so someone saw them at some point (maybe during the trial?). However, they weren't germane to the conspirators on trial, so why were they even significant -- much like the question of why the diary wasn't introduced in the 1865 trial. And please don't repeat your thoughts on that; we've heard enough.

Well, I did some research on the field glasses in an effort confirm your claims about them. Given my findings about your previous claims, I should have known that I would find what I found. You have once again described evidence in an incomplete manner and have avoided mentioning any of the problems with that evidence. In saying this, let me acknowledge that I realize that you might have done this innocently, perhaps because none of the sources you have read have provided a complete analysis on the issue.

Come to find out that there are numerous contradictions in, and obvious questions about, the evidence relating to the field glasses.

First off, rather than being the size of the binoculars that I used in the Army, which I wrongly assumed was the case, the field glasses that Mary Surratt supposedly gave to Lloyd were small opera glasses that Booth could have easily just stuck in his pocket. Here are some photos of field glasses from Booth’s day of the size that Booth supposedly had (click the image to see six photos of the glasses):

http://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/2014/...asses.html

Now why in the devil would Booth have bothered wrapping these small binoculars and asking Mary Surratt to give them to John Lloyd when he could have easily just stuck them in his coat pocket?

And then there’s the rather big problem that when shown the alleged Booth field glasses at the John Surratt trial, Lloyd said (1) that his impression was that the field glass was not the one he saw, (2) that the field glass he saw had the words “field glass” written in the top-center (whereas the alleged Booth binocs did not), (3) that the writing on the field glass that he saw was larger than the writing on the alleged Booth field glass, and (4) that the lettering was yellow (whereas the lettering on the alleged Booth binocs was not). Let us read the testimony he gave under direct examination:

By Mr. Pierrepont:
Q. See if you see any mark on this field-glass that you ever saw before, (handing witness the glass.)
A. (After examining the same.) It is my impression that this is not the kind of a one that I saw. That one was made something like this, but just on top in the centre here was printed, in larger letters than these are, "field-glass."
Q. Did you take it and examine it at all?
A. I did take it, and attempt to look through it, but I could not see anything.
Q. You could not see through it?
A. No, sir. I do not know what anybody wants such a thing as this for.
Q. Was it such a thing as this?
A. This resembles it very much. It was such a make as this. It was a double glass.
Q. Was it like this?
A. That I cannot say. I did not examine it closely. I can only say that just on top here between these two glasses was printed in yellow letters, "field-glass."
Q. Turn that little screw there and tell us what you see then?
A. (After turning the screw as directed.) I see "marine."
Q. Turn it further.
A. (Still turning.) I see "theatre," "field," "marine." The other one that I saw had "field-glass" printed just between these two glasses.
Q. Was it printed like that?
A. The letters were larger than these.
Q. But the same kind of letters?
A. The letters on the other were yellow.
Q. What kind of letters are these?
A. That I can hardly tell.
Q. What color I mean?
A. I will leave that to somebody who has a little better eyesight. (The Trial of John H. Surratt, vol. 1, p. 288)

John Garrett could not identify the alleged Booth field glass as the one he saw either! He added that the only time he saw Booth with a field glass was in his father’s house and that he never saw it again. From his testimony under direct examination:

Q. Examine that glass, (field-glass exhibited,) and see if you ever saw it before.
A. I cannot testify that I ever saw this glass; I have seen one similar to it.
Q. Where?
A. At my father's house.
Q. State whether the one you saw Booth have was similar to this.
A. Similar to this; yes, sir.
Q. Did it have a case?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you see it last?
A. I saw it at my father's house, in Booth's possession.
Q. Did he take it with him to the barn?
A. I don't know; I suppose not.
Q. How long did you have it in the house?
A. I don't know.
Q. Did you see it there after Booth was captured?
A. I did not. (pp. 303-304)

Everton Conger said he never saw the field glass until he saw it at the War Department:

Q. Please examine the field-glass shown you and see if it is the same field glass?
A. I do not know; I never saw it until I went to the War Department to get it.
Q. You did not take the field-glass from the house?
A. No.
Q. Do you know who did?
A. Byron Baker, as he is called. L. B. Baker is his name. (p. 309)

Now we come to Lt. Luther Baker. As Deborah Warner, curator at the National Museum of American History, points out in her 2014 article on the field glasses, Baker gave two different accounts of his alleged finding of the binocs:

Luther Byron Baker, the detective who brought the field glasses from Virginia to Washington, testified in one place that he saw them "at the Garrett place, where Booth was captured," and in another that he and Mr. Garrett found them "about nine miles from Garrett's place," at the home of people who may have been their relatives. (http://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/2014/...sses.html)

If we turn to Baker’s testimony at the John Surratt trial, we find that he gave a questionable story about how he supposedly found the glasses and gave two different stories about where he found them:

Q. Examine that field-glass, if you please, and state if you identify it.
A. I think it was in the latter part of July, after the assassination, that I first saw this field-glass. I saw it at the Garrett place, where Booth was captured. I was in among the ruins of the barn, poking among the ashes to ascertain if I could find any of the remains of the field-glass which I had been told. . . .
Mr. Bradley. Never mind what you had been told.
Witness, resuming. I found the remains of a cartridge-box; some lead, which seemed to have been melted, and a little wad. While I was there I ascertained from a small boy, who belonged to the place.
Mr. Bradley. Stop.
The District Attorney. Don't state what the boy said. Just state what you did after having this conversation with the boy.
Witness. I then asked Mr. Garrett if he had in his possession a field-glass which Booth brought there.
Mr. Bradley. Don't state what he answered.
Mr. Pierrepont. Just state what you did after the conversation with Mr. Garrett.
Witness. During a conversation with him I ascertained
The Court. Don't state what you ascertained from this conversation.
By Mr. Pierrepont:
Q. You ascertained something that led you to do what?
A. To go in search of the glass.
Q. Did you find it?
A. Mr. Garrett and myself found it about nine miles from Garrett's place.
Q. Was it the same Mr. Garrett who was on the stand here?
A. Yes, sir. It was secreted in a chamber, in a clothes chest. I took it and brought it to Washington. General Baker and I took it to the War Department, and there it was left. [He had just said that he saw and found the field glass in the ashes among the ruins of the barn at Garrett’s farm!]
Q. And this is the same glass?
A. This is the glass, as far as my judgment goes. (p. 321)

Things got worse under cross-examination:

Cross-examination:
By Mr. Bradley:
Q. Is there any mark on that glass by which you identify it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is it?
A. This thumb-screw and the label on it, I noticed as being peculiar.
Q. You never saw one before?
A. No, sir; I never saw one like it before.
Mr. Pierrepont. Just show that to the jury; I want them to see it.
Mr. Bradley. Never mind. You will have to bring it nearer to the party than that to make it evidence. There is nothing whatever to connect it with these parties.
The Assistant District Attorney. We think there is.
Mr. Pierrepont. In our view it is evidence enough to go to the jury.
Mr. Bradley. The witness is now under my cross-examination; when I am through you can take him.
Q. You never saw one before like it?
A. No, sir.
Q. Nor since?
A. No, sir.
Q. At whose house did you find it?
A. I do not remember the name of the farmer, but about nine miles from the
Garrett place. I think they were relatives of the Garretts. (pp. 321-323)

This is a rather different story than the one he gave at the impeachment trial. He said that the little boy, only five or six years old, somehow knew that “Booth” had given the field glasses to Garrett’s daughter Joanna, that the little boy somehow knew that Joanna had put them in her father’s writing desk (not the bookcase, as Lucinda Holloway later claimed), that he asked the father about it but the father gave him no information, that Baker then called Joanna into the room and demanded the field glasses, that Joanna began to cry, that Mr. Garrett then spoke with Joanna for a moment in private, and that Mr. Garrett then told him where to find the field glasses.

So which is it? Did the little boy tell Baker where to find the field glasses, or did Mr. Garrett? Did Baker first see the field glasses in the ashes in the barn, or did he find them nine miles away? Why didn’t Baker say anything about Joanna in his testimony at the John Surratt trial?

Things get even more confused and problematic when we consider Lucinda Holloway’s account, which you mentioned, although you did not bother to mention that she gave the account in 1897, 32 years after the fact. I do not see the time lapse as necessarily problematic. I only mention it because you folks always object when I quote a later account, but you turn around and quote later accounts whenever they say things you like.

Anyway, Mrs. Holloway, who lived in Richard Garrett’s home, said that “Booth” (the Garretts initially said they knew the man as “Boyd”) left his supposedly coveted and important field glasses on a bookcase in their house! She added that she wrote the initials “JWB” on the strap of the opera glasses! What’s more, she said that when Lt. Baker asked her father about the glasses, he unhesitatingly told him about them—but when Baker testified at the impeachment trial, he described a rather different encounter with the father. Anyway, here is what Holloway said:

After all had left and the family had become a little composed, I went to the bookcase to get some books for the children, as I was teaching school in the family at the time. The first thing that greeted my eyes were the opera glasses. I knew they did not belong to any of the family. I concluded they must be Booth’s, so I took them to Mr. Garrett and asked him what I must do with them. He replied by saying: ‘Take them out of my sight. I do not wish to see anything that will remind me of this dreadful affair.’

I told him I would send them up to my mother’s in a day or two. I took a pin and marked ‘J.W.B’ under the buckle on the strap. And during the day my brother came to Mr. Garrett’s and I gave them to him to take up to my mother, thinking they were too valuable to be destroyed as Mr. Garrett had directed me to do.

The next evening Lieutenant Baker, in company with Jack Garrett, came to Mr. Garrett’s in pursuit of them. They did not know really that they were there, but simply supposed that Booth had them and thought they might be there. Lieutenant Baker asked Mr. Garrett if they were not, and without hesitancy he told them I had them. He then came to me and asked where they were. I very reluctantly told him where they were. Lieutenant Baker and Jack Garrett went up to my mother’s, which was about eight miles, and got them. They came back to Mr. Garrett’s about four o’clock in the evening, and spent the night and returned to Washington the next day.”

Notice that Holloway said nothing about the field glasses being given to Joanna Garrett, nothing about Baker confronting Joanna, nothing about Joanna breaking down in tears, nothing about Mr. Garrett taking her aside to speaking privately to her. If these events had happened, surely Mr. Garrett and/or Joanna would have told her about them. Instead, Holloway simply has Baker asking Mr. Garrett about the field glasses and has Mr. Baker unhesitatingly revealing their location.

Now, of course, in addition to the problems with Hollaway’s story noted above, there is also the fact that “Jack Garrett” could not have come back with Lt. Baker within a few days of the barn shooting, because he was arrested and did not return until several weeks later.

Yet another problem is that Lt. Baker claimed that he did not find the field glasses until July, whereas Holloway has him retrieving them just a few days after the soldiers left. Baker stated that he returned to the Garrett farm after the Garretts asked him to sign a statement to document the damage done to the barn. Mr. Garrett wrote the damage statement on June 28. Thus, there is no way that Baker came back to get the field glasses within just a few days after the soldiers departed.

Lt. Baker did not “find” the field glasses until about two months after the man in the barn was shot and hauled away. That left plenty of time for someone to plant some field glasses with the Garretts. Recall that John Garrett testified at the John Surratt trial that he only saw field glasses in the house when he saw them in “Booth’s possession.”

Are we really supposed to believe that a little five-or-six-year-old boy was so alert about happenings around him that he knew that “Booth” had given the field glasses to his older sister and that, per Baker’s John-Surratt-trial testimony, Baker was able to “ascertain” from this brilliant little boy that the field glasses were nine miles away? Really???

Is it not puzzling that Baker said that the field glasses he found had the same words printed it on them as the field glasses that the War Department supplied for the John Surratt trial, yet Lloyd (1) said they did not seem to be the same field glasses, (2) said that they had different words printed on them, (3) said that the lettering was bigger than the lettering on the alleged Booth field glasses, and (4) said that the lettering was in a different color than the lettering on the field glasses submitted as evidence in the trial?