Herold and Surratt

[John Fazio]

(11-04-2013 06:08 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  In his book Andy Jampoler says there were major problems with Henri Beaumont de Sainte-Marie's character as a person. Nevertheless, for what it's worth (if anything), here is part of Sainte-Marie's testimony at the John Surratt trial:

*****************************************************

Q. Did the prisoner tell you at this time anything about his disguise? if so what?

A Yes, sir; I asked the prisoner how he got out of Washington; if he
had a hard time in escaping. He told me he had a very hard time.

Q. How did he say he got out from Washington?

A. He told me he left that night.

Q. What night?

A. The night of the assassination, or the next morning, I am not positive.

Q. What was the disguise, if any, he told you he had?

A. He told me he was so disguised that nobody could take him for an American; that he looked like an Englishman; that he had a scarf over his shoulders. He did not mention any other disguise that I remember.

Roger:

It is one thing to say that Ste. Marie was unreliable and quite another to say that because he was such, and because he had his eye on money, his entire Affidavit is false. That is too much to swallow, especially because Surratt excoriated him in the Hiss interview, holding him responsible for his capture and imprisonment ("Through the contemptible treachery of a friend--so called -- a Canadian. I had shared my bread and butter, my blanket, and even my shirts with the man...") Note that he did not say that Ste. Marie's Affidavit was a pack of lies, but, instead, accused him of treachery. That means, not that he lied, but that he exposed the truth! That does not mean he told the whole truth and nothing but the truth (e.g. he gave two different versions of what Surratt told him re his location on 4-14), but nor does it mean that nothing he said was true. Again, the baby and the bathwater.

John