What Was The Role of David Herold

[John Fazio]

(04-15-2013 12:51 AM)Gene C Wrote:  

(04-15-2013 12:02 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  I am more inclined to believe that Dye made an honest mistake of fact, rather than that he committed perjury. Why do you suppose his testimony was perjury?

I wasn't meaning Dye in particular - I know you have looked into this in much greater detail than I have, and know more about it than I do - although thats a pretty large honest mistake for Dye to make. It has been a while since I read anything about John Surratt's trial, but regarding perjury, Henri Sainte Marie comes to mind. (but I could be mistaken about the name)

Do you believe there were false witnesses at Surratt's trial?

Gene:

First, do not sell yourself short. I feel certain you know as much about this subject as I do. There are so many unknowns, mysteries, conundrums and enigmas, that we cannot regard ourselves as anything more than students.

Second, Henri Beaumont de Ste. Marie committed perjury somewhere, because he said one thing in his Affidavit, submitted to the American Consul, Rufus King, in Italy, and another on the stand. I don't have the material in front of me, but my recollection is that he said in Italy that Surratt told him that at the time of the assassination, he was in "New York" (he did not say Elmira) "prepared to fly", whereas on the stand he said that Surratt told him he left Washington the night of April 14, by train, disguised as a Canadian or English tourist. Inasmuch as the Prosecution (Pierrepont and Carrington) were pulling out every stop to put Surratt in Washington on the 14th (using 14 witnesses altogether), my judgment is that the Affidavit is more likely to be true. But if we accept that, we also have to accept that most or all of the balance of the Affidavit is also true. If that is so, Surratt admitted that he and Booth engineered the assassination and that they were following orders from higher-ups in New York (read: Copperheads) and London. Couple that with Surratt's telling McMillan that he and Booth spent $10,000 on their conspiracy and we have a solid case not for "kidnapping" (a red herring), but for murder, and from a very early date. The evidence is not conclusive, but it suggests that Ste. Marie did not bump into Surratt in Italy by chance; that he followed him for reward money, not knowing that Stanton had revoked the reward offer. Nevertheless, he did receive $10,000 in reward money for his help in capturing Surratt. He was very dissatisfied with this, feeling he was entitled to much more. His testimony at the trial is very mysterious, because he could have been the Prosecution's star witness, but was let go after a few milquetoast questions that were so poorly regarded by defense lawyers Merrick, et al., that they didn't even bother to cross-examine him. It has all the signs of a behind-the-scenes deal of some kind. Someone, apparently, got to him. Perhaps the Roman Catholic Church, which, for whatever reason, supported Surratt, not only at the trial, but also when he was a fugitive for 19 months. They even gave him a Solemn High Requiem Mass when he did in 1916, an honor usually given only to clergy and those who have rendered outstanding service to the Church. Ste. Marie died young (48, as I recall), and suddenly, collapsing on a street somewhere, an embittered man.

Well, inasmuch as 14 witnesses put Surrat in Washington on April 14 and only 4 put him in Elmira, and inasmuch as the jury was hung at 8-4 for acquittal (7 Southerners and 1 Northerner), it appears that some of those 14 witnesses were not entirely truthful. The next question, then, is: Would men of such impeccable reputations as Pierrepont and Carrington knowingly use false testimony in a trial of such importance and fame? I for one am not convinced that Surratt was not in Washington. There is a lot of evidence favoring it beside the 14 witnesses. It remains another of the enduring mysteries surrounding the assassination, as does everything about Ste. Marie.

John

---

(04-15-2013 06:05 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(04-15-2013 03:32 PM)wsanto Wrote:  

(04-15-2013 09:33 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  Exactly right John. With their lives on the line they would not leave it to chance. They had to have a pass. If only we knew how they got such a pass!

Oh wait, see 'A Threat to the Republic'

Jerry, I'm sorry I haven't read your book: If Booth and Herold each had a pass to cross the bridge--why didn't Cobb testify to that? In fact his testimony, in my opinion, seems rather clear that it was pretty routine to let people pass if they had a reasonable explanation. Also, he wasn't asked by the court why he permitted their passing without a pass or even if they had a pass. No one really questioned it.

In fact we know a pass was not needed by Fletcher's testimony. He testified that Cobb was going to let him cross as well without a pass but he would not let him back into the city.

Perhaps Booth and Herold knew they could cross without a pass. Perhaps eveyone knew that.

Wsanto,
I explain the answers to all those questions in my book. Rather than go through my thesis again, look at some older threads on this site. I'm afraid if I make my case again Laurie would throw an eraser at me.

Jerry and William:

Jerry, I read your book, and much as I would like to support your work, I have to be honest and say I do not believe the evidence supports the "pass" theory, which is central to your book. There is talk in Atzerodt's confessions and statements about passes, true, but nowhere is there any indication that either he or Booth or any of the conspirators actually obtained one. Further, nothing in the conversations between Cobb and Booth and Herold suggests that anyone had a pass. If Booth or Herold had a pass, they would simply have flashed it and they would then have been permitted to pass on the strength of it. Instead, we have all this palaver about the time of day, the rules, where are you going, why, etc., etc. All of this suggests that Booth and Herold had other reasons to know they would be permitted to cross, which, in my judgment, is why they knew they didn't need a pass and therefore did not bother to get one, assuming they could have gotten one if they wanted one. Te other reason? Perhaps Mosby men in the wings prepared to force passage if needed. Perhaps a well placed bribe of Cobb. Here is something else to think about. Rule No. 5 provided that passage could only be granted after 9:00 if one had a pass AND GAVE THE RIGHT COUNTERSIGN. But then, in the official accounts, we hear nothing about a countersign. Was one required? What was it? Was it given by Booth and Herold? In the entire corpus of literature on the subject, I have found only one reference to the use of a countersign that night. It is in Guttridge and Neff's book. That alone makes it suspect, but the fact that they cite no authority for their reference makes it even more suspect. They said (p. 147, Dark Union) that the password was "T.B." and the countersign was "T.B. Road" and that Booth and Herold used it on the Maryland side of the river. Can you shed any light on this?

John