Herold and Surratt

[RJNorton]

I agree, John. As I have said before, I do not know where John Surratt was on April 14. All I have said is that many books say he was in Elmira and simply dismiss the Washington evidence. Personally I think there is sufficient Washington evidence to take a good look at it. Obviously the trail of evidence leads either to Elmira or to Washington - I think we should look at both trails. What I wonder about is the prosecution's strategy at the trial. They spent a good deal of time and effort trying to prove to the jury Surratt was in Washington. Let's pretend they were successful. Would it have mattered? If Surratt were in Washington that night but committed no crime that was provable would that have made a huge difference in the way the jury voted? Certainly it would have in the 1865 trial; but would the same be true in 1867 with a civilian court? I guess what I am asking is did the prosecution really advance its case by spending so much time on Surratt's whereabouts on the 14th?