Where was John Surratt on April 14, 1865 ?

[tom82baur]

(03-08-2017 01:34 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:42 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Kees, as far as I can tell, Atzerodt does not say he saw Surratt in Washington on April 14 in his July 6, 1865, statement (the one in Weichmann's book). He says that Booth told him that he (Booth) saw Surratt; he does not say he (Atzerodt) saw Surratt. Nevertheless, I find this curious. Why would Booth say this?

It seems to me there are at least four possibilities regarding what Atzerodt wrote that night: (1) Surratt really was in DC; (2) Booth was lying; (3) Atzerodt was lying; (4) Atzerodt misheard what Booth told him.

The way I (wrongly) interpreted the text:

"Booth told ME (= Atzerodt) that Surratt was in the Herndon House on the night of the murder, the 14th of April, we were not all together at the Herndon House. Booth told ME (= Atzerodt) that Surratt was to help at the box, that he expected others in the box. I (= Atzerodt, if it was Booth he should have written / said "He") saw Surratt a few moments ago ."

The text in Weichmann's book (p. 387) reads "The words of Booth were: 'I saw Surratt a few moments ago.' " 2 (footnote). The footnote states: 2. "If Atzerodt is correct in this statement, then John Surratt was in Washington the night of the assassination, April 14." p. 491.

[L Verge]

I tend to agree with Gene's analysis also - especially since Atzerodt appears to have been shoved into being a fall guy. It must have galled him that Surratt was thought to be the #2 man in the original plot and then was not around for the final showdown.

Should we also consider that his language barrier was misinterpreted by those taking down his statement, or that they deliberately changed it to imply that Surratt was in DC and implicated so that the authorities would continue to hunt him down?

[RJNorton]

(03-08-2017 03:38 PM)tom82baur Wrote:  The text in Weichmann's book (p. 387) reads "The words of Booth were: 'I saw Surratt a few moments ago.' " 2 (footnote). The footnote states: 2. "If Atzerodt is correct in this statement, then John Surratt was in Washington the night of the assassination, April 14." p. 491.

Thanks for including this, Tom. It makes sense to me that Weichmann would have wanted Surratt to have been in Washington on April 14th.

[Wild Bill]

I read the materials associated with Surratt being in Washington on the 14th as stated in Tom82baur for my book Confederate Freedom Fighter (Surratt Society, 2007), 188-95, and chapter notes 238-40.

[loetar44]

(03-08-2017 11:02 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Is it feasible to think that many people held John Surratt somewhat responsible for Mary's imprisonment and death sentence, as he seemed to show more concern for his own survival that that of his mother? Knowing that he was involved with Booth, his involvement as a confederate courier, Booth's visits to the boarding house the day of the assassination, cast a large and dark shadow on his mother.

Claims that John was seen in Washington on the day of the assassination ties him closer to Booth and his plot. Convinced of his guilt and involvement in Lincoln's assassination, whether it is true or not that John was in Washington, it maybe the only act of retribution Atzerodt (and others) can do to make things more difficult for John, and to ensure he is punished for the perceived greater sin of deserting his mother in her time of peril.

Good thinking Gene!

Just another thought: the trial of John Surratt should tear open the trauma of the murder of President Lincoln and the execution of John’s mother. I don’t know exactly if public opinion in relation with Mary Surratt was already substantially changing into the thought that an innocent woman was executed. Re-examining all the evidence at a new trial could bring this to light. Therefore the involvement of her son is of great importance. If he was guilty without a reasonable doubt, then Mrs. Surratt was guilty, by protecting her son. Is it in that case possible that John Surratt’s role was made greater by the prosecution, by placing him in DC on April 14 (instead of Almira) showing him as a very active accomplice of Booth to murder Lincoln? As I said: just another thought….

---

(03-08-2017 03:53 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 03:38 PM)tom82baur Wrote:  The text in Weichmann's book (p. 387) reads "The words of Booth were: 'I saw Surratt a few moments ago.' " 2 (footnote). The footnote states: 2. "If Atzerodt is correct in this statement, then John Surratt was in Washington the night of the assassination, April 14." p. 491.

Thanks for including this, Tom. It makes sense to me that Weichmann would have wanted Surratt to have been in Washington on April 14th.

I second Roger! Thanks Tom.

[loetar44]

I reread the testimony of Sergeant Joseph H. Dye. Judge for yourself.

Joseph M. Dye, sworn and examined [Monday, June 17, 1867].
By Mr. Pierrepont :
Q. State your age and occupation.
A. Twenty-three next August; I belong to the United States army, and am a recruiting sergeant in Philadelphia.
Q. In the regular army ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where are you now stationed ?
A. I am stationed in Philadelphia.
Q. How long have you been stationed in Philadelphia, or about how long ?
A. A little over a year.
Q. Where did you go to Philadelphia from ?
A. From New York.
Q. From what place did you go to New York 1
A. From my home.
Q. Where is that ?
A. Washington county, Pennsylvania.
Q. Were you in the army in April, 1865?
A. I was.
Q. Where was your regiment stationed on the 14th of April, 1865?
A. I belonged to battery C, independent Pennsylvania artillery, stationed at Camp Barry.
Q. Tell me where Camp Barry was.
A. It was at the junction of H street and the Baltimore turnpike.
Q. Give us a description of what direction it was from Ford's theatre.
A. It is out H street.
Q. The same way as the Capitol, except north of the Capitol '!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How far was your camp from Ford's theatre ?
A. I presume nearly two miles.
Q. Were you in Washington on the night of the murder ?
A. I was.
Q. Was there any officer with you ?
A. Yes, sir; Sergeant Robert Cooper.
Q. Is Sergeant Robert Cooper here ia town ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have seen him lately ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you seen him to-day ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where were you on the evening of the 14th, at the time of the murder ?
A. I was in an oyster saloon.
Q. Will you state when you went into the oyster saloon, and from what place you went ?
A. From Ford's theatre.
Q. At what time in that evening did you come to Ford's theatre ?
A. I arrived there about half past nine o'clock.
Q. Who was with you ?
A. Sergeant Cooper.
Q. Had you any pass—were you allowed to come there ?
A. I had a monthly pass, but I think it was then out of date.
Q. Were you at the theatre ?
A. I was in front of the theatre.
Q. Were you sitting or standing most of the time ?
A. Sitting.
Q. What were you sitting upon ?
A. Upon some plank, or something of the kind, placed there, in order to alleviate persons getting in and out of carriages.
Q. Did you see Mr. Lincoln's carriage there ?
A. I did, sir.
Q. What was the condition of the street in front of the theatre that night as to its being light ?
A. It was light directly in front of the door.
Q. In what way ?
A. There was a large lamp there.
Q. A gas lamp ?
A. I cannot swear as to its being gas or oil.
Q. State whether it was light or not.
A. It was light.
Q. Do you remember what the temperature of that evening was, whether it was cold or mild ?
A. It was mild.
Q. As you sat there upon this plank, what was Sergeant Cooper doing ?
A. Sergeant Cooper was moving up and down upon the pavement.
Q. Did yon have any conversation with him while you remained there ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. While you were sitting there, state whether there was any change in the inside of the theatre as to persons coming out at the end of any act ?
A. They did.
Q. State what that was, and when.
A. Parties came down—I presume it was about ten or fifteen minutes after we got there—and went into the saloon below and the saloon adjoining the theatre to drink.
Q. Were there quite a number of them ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. As these people came down from the theatre at the time you mention, whom did you see, and vv'hat did you hear said in relation to Mr. Lincoln's carriage ?
A. Before they came down I heard conversation there.
Mr. Bradley. We object to that conversation.
Mr. Pierrepont. Before you answer that question I will ask you another. State whether you know John Wilkes Booth.
A. I do, sir.
Q. State whether John Wilkes Booth was one of the persons who entered into that conversation.
A. He was.
Q. Now state what it was.
Mr. Merrick. We object to the question. I will state our objection, unless it is the proper order for the gentleman on the other side to state the grounds on which they offer the declarations of Booth.
The Court. You may state the ground of your objection.
Mr. Merrick. The ground of our objection is that they propose now to offer the declarations of Booth for the purpose of affecting the prisoner at the bar. They have established no connection between Booth and the prisoner as yet. I state this objection, not for the purpose of arguing it, but in order that counsel may present the grounds upon which they make the offer.
Mr. Pierrepont. I present no grounds. It must be apparent, without any sort of argument, that what John Wilkes Booth did in connection with this murder is evidence.
Mr. Bradley. We supposed that possibly might be the ground of the gentleman's offer. I take it for granted that whatever John Wilkes Booth may have said or done, unless they connect the prisoner at the bar with John Wilkes Booth in that transaction, is of no sort of consequence. I suppose, if the prosecution are to proceed upon the ground of conspiracy, they must first establish some connection between the two parties ; when that is done, how far the evidence may be admissible is another question. But until that is done, although Booth may have killed the President, and fifty other people have been connected with him—until they show that this party was so connected, his declarations cannot possibly be evidence.
Mr. Pierrepont. We state to the court that we shall connect the prisoner with it.
Mr. Bradley. That is an entirely different question. That has never been stated before.
Mr. Pierrepont. We say it now.
The Court. Of course, if the counsel for the prosecution fail to make connection of Booth with the prisoner at the bar, whatever Booth said or whatever he did, although he may have committed the murder charged against the prisoner, his declarations could not be testimony against the prisoner.
Mr. Bradley. As the gentlemen now put it upon the ground that they expect to connect the prisoner with Booth, it is entirely within the discretion of the court to say whether they will permit testimony to be given until some apparent connection is established. This is an enormous case, and I ask the court whether they are to be allowed to continue the trial of all the parties named in the indictment, through this immense mass of testimony, before they offer any connection of the prisoner at the bar with the transaction, or will your honor advertised beforehand require them to bring forward their evidence connecting him with it.
The Court. The usual course of proceeding in such case is to tell the counsel that they must use their discretion as to what part of the case they will present any particular evidence in. I always advertise counsel, however, that unless they connect the defendant with the transaction, the testimony will all be thrown out.
Mr. Pierrepont. Of course ; but I will say, that if the counsel had not interrupted us, we would have connected the prisoner with the transaction, long before this.
Mr. Bradley. All I can say is that I interrupted you at the proper time.
The Court. The court will exercise its jurisdiction in this and every other case, as far as possible, to elicit the truth of the whole matter. If the prisioner at the bar is not connected with the transaction, the testimony will be ruled out.
By Mr. Pierrepont : Proceed now and state what you saw done, and what you heard said, by John
Wilkes Booth, and with whom he was conversing.
A. The first who appeared on the scene was John Wilkes Booth himself. What first attracted my attention was his conversing with a low, villanous looking person at the end of the passage.
Q. You mean by low, short in stature ?
A. Yes, sir; it was but a moment before another person joined them. This person was neat in appearance—neatly dressed—and entered in conversation. This rush came down from the theatre, and as they were coming, Booth said to this other person that he would come out now, as I supposed, referring to the President. They were then standing facing the place where the President would have to pass in order to reach his carriage, and watching eagerly for his appearance. He did not come. They then hurriedly had a conversation together ; then one of them went out and examined the carriage, and Booth stepped into a restaurant. At this time all the party who had come down from the theatre had gone up. Booth remained there long enough to take a drink. I could not say whether he did or not. He came around and stood in the end of the passage from the street to the stage where the actors passed in. He appeared in a moment again. This third party, neatly dressed, immediately stepped up in front of the theatre and called the time.
Q. To have no misunderstanding, state what you mean by calling the time.
A. He stepped up and looked at the clock, and called the time to the other two.
Q. That is he stated what it was ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was the clock ?
A. The clock was in the vestibule of the theatre.
Q. State how the light was at the time relating to the face of the neatly dressed man who called the time.
A. I did not observe it particularly at that time. As soon as he called the time to the other two, he went up the street towards H street. He did not remain there long, but came down again, stopped in front of the theatre, looked at the clock, and called the time again, looking directly at these two, and seemed excited.
Q. That is, Booth and the other man ?
A. Yes, sir. He then immediately turned his heel and went towards H street. It was then I thought something was wrong by the manner in which these three had been conducting themselves, and as a soldier I had a revolver in my pocket with my handkerchief wrapped around it.
Q. What part of it ?
A. Around the revolver. We wore artillery jackets, and the revolver was in my breast pocket. My suspicions were so aroused that I unwound my handkerchief from around my revolver. It was not long before he appeared again, going on a fast walk from the direction of H street.
Q. How did he look then ?
A. He placed himself in front of the theatre, where the light shone clear on his face. There was a picture on that countenance of great excitement, exceedingly nervous and very pale. He told them for the third time that it was ten minutes past ten o'clock. That is the last time he called it. It was ten minutes past ten o'clock.
By Mr. Bradley :
Q. And that was this time ?
A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Pjerrepont:
Q. Did you say that the person said three times that it was ten minutes past ten o'clock ?
A. I said he called the time three times, and this time it was ten minutes past ten o'clock.
Q. And the other periods of time were before ?
A. Yes sir.
By a Juror :
Q. He did not state each time that it was ten minutes past ten ?
A. No, sir. There were eight or nine, or ten minutes between them. The last time I do not think there were more than five.
By Mr. Pierrepont :
Q. Did you see that man distinctly?
A. I did.
Q. Very distinctly ?
A. I did very distinctly.
Q. Do you see him now ?
A. I do.
Q. Can you tell us where he is ?
A. I can.
Q. Tell us where he is.
A. He sits there, (pointing to the prisoner.)
Q. Is that the man ?
A. It is. I have seen his face often since, while I have been sleeping—it was so exceedingly pale. He hurried up towards H street again, and that is the last I have seen of him until lately.
Q. You say he was the prisoner at the bar ?
A. Yes, sir, and I say that I have seen him since, while I have been sleeping.
Q. Did it make a very strong impression from what occurred at the time ?
A. It did, sir.
Q. What did Booth do then ?
A. He walked directly into the theatre.
Q. Did you call anybody's attention to this at the time ?
A. I did.
Q. Who?
A. Sergeant Robert H. Cooper.
Q,. Did you point out at the time who Booth was ?
(Question objected to by Mr. Bradley and withdrawn.)
Q. Where did Booth then go ?
A. He entered the front of the theatre.
Q. Where did you go, and who went with you ?
A. Sergeant Cooper and myself went to an oyster saloon. Sergeant Cooper was particularly with me.
Q. How soon after you got into the oyster saloon did you hear of the murder ?
A. We had not time to eat our oysters.
Q. What did yon do when you heard of it ?
A. We did not go to the theatre. We hurried right up H street to the camp. I thought a detail would have to be made, and as I was first sergeant I would have to be there.
Q. Did Sergeant Cooper belong to the same camp ?
A. He did.
Q. Did you both go up H street ?
A. Yes, sir, we both went up to H street, and out H street.
Q. When you got out to H street, what did you do ?
A. We passed out to Camp Barry.
Q. What occurred on the way ?
A. A lady hoisted the v/indow of her parlor, and asked
(Question objected to by Mr. Bradley.)
Mr. Pierrepont stated that he would not press the question, and would turn the witness over to the defence for cross-examination.
The court thereupon took a recess until to-morrow at 10 a. m.

The Court met at 10 a. m. [Tuesday, June 18, 1867]
Mr. Pierrepont said: If your honor please, when the court adjourned on yesterday I had just put a question to the witness Dye, touching what occurred as he and Sergeant Cooper hastened from the oyster saloon up H street, to which question the counsel for the prisoner objected. I withdrew the question for the time, thinking then that I would renew it on the cross-examination. I have come to the conclusion, however, that it would be more orderly to ask the question in the direct, and now propose to do so. I will ask it in such a form that the gentlemen on the other side can take whatever exception to it they see proper. The witness will understand that he is not to answer until the court has ruled upon it.
The question is this :
Q. You stated yesterday that you and Sergeant Cooper hastened up H street. What did you and Sergeant Cooper see as you hastened up H street ?
(Mr. Bradley objected to the question as irrelevant.)
Mr. Pierrepont. We suppose, may it please your honor, that all the incidents and facts that transpired at the time of the murder are proper. We suppose that a signal-light is proper; we suppose that a signal-whistle is proper. Such have always been allowed to be given in evidence. We do not suppose it is necessary to prove that the prisoner gave the signal-whistle, or that the signal-light was displayed by him. I repeat it is our opinion that all the incidents connected with a murder of this kind are proper to be given in evidence, as having a tendency to throw light upon the question being inquired into.
The Court. It is very difficult for the court to determine at this stage, without knowing what the evidence is, whether it is relevant and admissible. I propose, therefore, to let the answer be given, and then if it be found to in any way connect the prisoner with the transaction—the taking away of the life of Abraham Lincoln—it will be regarded as proper evidence. If not, it will be ruled out. To this ruling Mr. Bradley reserved an exception.
Examination of Joseph M. Dye resumed.
By Mr. Pierrepont :
Q. Please state what occurred as you and Sergeant Cooper hastened up H street.
A. As we were passing along H street out to Camp Barry, a lady hoisted a window and asked us what was wrong down town.
Q. What did you say, and what did she reply ?
A. I told her that President Lincoln was shot. She asked me who did it. I told her Booth. She asked me how I knew it. I told her a man saw him who knew him.
Q. Will you tell us what was the condition of the moon at that time?
A. I cannot say exactly. I disremember.
Q. Do you know whether it was full or different at the time ?
A. It was light enough for us to see some distance on the street.
Q. Do you know whether the moon was up ?
A. Yes, sir ; I believe it was.
Q. Do you know whether the moon was then at or about the full ?
A. I cannot say.
Mr. Bradley here interposed an objection to the course of examination being pursued. The witness had answered that he did not recollect what the condition of the moon was, and he did not think it altogether proper to pursue this line of examination further with leading questions.
Mr. Pierrepont. Very well, sir; I will not press the examination further. The almanac will show what the condition of the moon was on that night.
Q. Please describe this woman who opened the window, and with whom you had this conversation.
A. She appeared to be an elderly lady.
Q. How was she as to being stout or otherwise ?
A. I could not say particularly. She resembled the lady on the trial of the conspirators—Mrs. Surratt.
Q. Have you seen the house since ?
A. I have.
Q. Do you know the number ?
A. I do—541.
Q. Tell the jury which side of the street it is on as you go up.
A. As you go towards the camp—an easterly direction—it is on the righthand side.
Q. Is there anything peculiar about the house ?
A. Yes, sir. I recollect the steps distinctly as they appeared that night.
Q. Tell the jury how the steps are.
A. In order to answer her question I had to go up in the direction of the steps, which are very tall.
Q. Will you state what was the manner of this woman when she thus addressed you ?
A. She just asked the question.
Q. State whether her manner was excited or not.
A. I do not recollect.
Q. What then did you do ?
A. Passed on out towards the camp.
Q. Did you pass swiftly or slowly ?
A. Passed along as on a fast walk.
Q. At the time she opened the window, state whether anybody was ahead of you in the street.
A. There was not. We met two policemen a short distance beyond that, who had not even heard of the assassination. What I mean by that is, that no pedestrians had passed that way.
Q. When you saw Booth and Surratt at the theatre, just before this occurrence which you have now described, was Booth disguised ?
A. No, sir. He had a slouched hat on.
Q. Was Surratt disguised ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was the short man who was with him disguised ?
A. No, sir. He was a villanous, rough-looking character.
Q. I mean as to the disguise of their dress. Was the dress of any of them disguised ?
A. No, sir.

A lengthy cross-examination followed

[RJNorton]

Kees, IMO this testimony sounds believable. Thank you for posting it.

However, a few questions come to mind. If this were Surratt, why didn't he go in with Booth to assist with the assassination? Booth did not know for certain (at that point) how many people might get in his way. Wouldn't it be better to have Surratt at his side inside the theater?

And I think it was apparent that Surratt was a much more capable person than Atzerodt. If Surratt were in town, wouldn't it be better to give Atzerodt the assignment of calling the time at Ford's, and Surratt the assignment of killing Johnson?

[L Verge]

Again, my memory is failing me, but hasn't research established who that person was calling out the time? A person connected to Ford's Theatre and not Surratt?

[RJNorton]

(03-10-2017 09:43 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Again, my memory is failing me, but hasn't research established who that person was calling out the time? A person connected to Ford's Theatre and not Surratt?

Laurie, possibly this may be what you are thinking of?

From Michael Shein's John Surratt: The Lincoln Assassin Who Got Away:

"Mr. C.B. Hess, an actor, is pleased to be included in the evening’s entertainment on April 14. Though not in the cast of Our American Cousin, he’s been engaged to sing a patriotic song in honor of the President and the great Union victory at the conclusion of the show. Filled with the nervous energy that always precedes a performance, Mr. Hess steps from the stage door and sees Lewis Carland, a costumer and actor, and James J. Gifford, a stage carpenter, standing out front. Carland and Gifford had just come from the adjoining saloon, where they’d ducked in the side door just in time to catch a glimpse of Mr. Booth leaving by the front door. Mr. Hess asks the time. Mr. Carland walks to the front entrance, peers at the clock, then returns with the news that it is ten minutes past ten. Mr. Hess repeats, "Ten minutes past ten – I’ll be wanted in a few minutes," and he ducks back in at the stage entrance. Not more than two minutes later he hears the report of a pistol, and suddenly all is chaos."

[Susan Higginbotham]

It seems to me to be rather odd that no one else noticed this calling-out of the time that Sergeant Dye testified to. And why would Booth be expecting Lincoln, a devoted theatergoer, to leave in his carriage before the play had ended?

[L Verge]

(03-10-2017 01:35 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 09:43 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Again, my memory is failing me, but hasn't research established who that person was calling out the time? A person connected to Ford's Theatre and not Surratt?

Laurie, possibly this may be what you are thinking of?

From Michael Shein's John Surratt: The Lincoln Assassin Who Got Away:

"Mr. C.B. Hess, an actor, is pleased to be included in the evening’s entertainment on April 14. Though not in the cast of Our American Cousin, he’s been engaged to sing a patriotic song in honor of the President and the great Union victory at the conclusion of the show. Filled with the nervous energy that always precedes a performance, Mr. Hess steps from the stage door and sees Lewis Carland, a costumer and actor, and James J. Gifford, a stage carpenter, standing out front. Carland and Gifford had just come from the adjoining saloon, where they’d ducked in the side door just in time to catch a glimpse of Mr. Booth leaving by the front door. Mr. Hess asks the time. Mr. Carland walks to the front entrance, peers at the clock, then returns with the news that it is ten minutes past ten. Mr. Hess repeats, "Ten minutes past ten – I’ll be wanted in a few minutes," and he ducks back in at the stage entrance. Not more than two minutes later he hears the report of a pistol, and suddenly all is chaos."

Thanks, Roger; that's exactly what I was remembering. I just want to add a personal opinion on suspecting any statements or testimonies given in 1865 and 1867 by anyone connected with federal authorities who wanted revenge...

[Gene C]

this reminds me of a song

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qssWO8NSq0

[loetar44]

I learned that witness sergeant Joseph M. Dye was seen by the defense, as unreliable, with a “dark past” (with an indictment for passing counterfeit money). One of the arguments was that men from his own native town would not believe him upon his oath.

Barber Charles H. M. Wood had not sworn falsely, but he was according to the defense “clearly mistaken”, for John Surratt could not have been in two different places (DC and Elmira) at the same time.

Curious who the 13 persons were who placed John Surratt in Washington DC on April 14, 1865? Here they are:

1. Sergeant Joseph M. Dye. Saw, sitting upon the theatre’s platform, Surratt in front of Ford’s theatre that night under suspicious circumstances.
2. Sergeant Robert A. Cooper. Was with Joseph Dye.
3. David C. Reed, saw John Surratt at 2:30 pm on Pennsylvania avenue, near the National Hotel. There was a recognition and they nodded to each other.
4. Susan Ann Jackson (a newly hired black servant at the Surratt house), saw John Surratt (speaking with his mother) in the dining-room at the Surratt boarding house, 541 H Street, between 8 and 9 pm. Mary Surratt said to her that he was her son. Susan brought a pot of tea into the room and later served dinner for John Surratt.
5. Scipio Grillo walked with Herold to Willards, where Herold spoke with two young men. Herold says to one of them " You are going to-night, ain't you ?" The man, who resembled John Surratt, answered “Yes”.
6. John Lee, walking in Thirteenth street, passed a man whom he took to be John Surratt.
7. William E. Cleaver met John Surratt on horseback at H-street at 4 pm. Cleaver said "How are you, John” and Surratt nodded to him.
8. Benjamin W. Vanderpoel saw Surratt, Booth and 2 or 3 other men at a certain concert saloon on Pennsylvania avenue (Metropolitan Hall or Washington Hall, couldn’t remember) sitting and talking at a round table, a woman dancing at the lower end of the hall.
9. Charles H. M. Wood, barber at Messrs. Booker & Stewart's barber shop, on E street, near Grover's theatre. He shaved John Surratt and dressed his hair, about nine o'clock.
10. Charles Ramsell saw a man resembling John Surratt in the early morning on April 15 (between 4 and 5 am) on horseback, asking if there would be any trouble in getting through the pickets. The man gave a “sneering laugh” when he was told that Lincoln was murdered. The man (John Surratt ?) appeared to be very uneasy, fidgetty, and nervous.
11. Frank M. Heaton saw the President and his wife arriving at Ford’s theatre, and he saw (in the crowd) at the same time (between a quarter of eight and a quarter past eight) a man who resembled John Surratt.
12. Walter H. Coleman saw Booth around 6 pm on Pennsylvania avenue, between Tenth and Eleventh streets. Booth was sitting on his horse with his face towards Coleman, and was leaning over talking very earnestly with a man who stood on the curbstone. That man was a look alike of John Surratt “very much”. Coleman was with George W. Cushing Jr., but Cushing could not say that the man in question resembled John Surratt, because his attention was only directed to Booth at that time.
13. Last but not least: Theodore Benjamin Rhodes, an clock-maker, living since 1862 east of the Capitol. His testimony, together with the testimonies of Charles Wood (the barber), Sergeant Joseph M. Dye and Susan Ann Jackson (the black servant), struck me the most!! It contains (for me) astonishing elements which were all new for me. Rhodes tells that he visited Ford’s theater on the 14th April about mid-day. He declared:

“I went in merely to look at the theatre. I went up the steps to the second floor; went down in front where the circle was, to look upon the stage; whilst there I saw one of the box doors open a little and shut. I was anxious to see from that point of view, and supposing some one was in there, having heard some one stepping about, I went down to the box and looked out from that point. As I approached the box whoever was in there walked away out of the box, and I entered and looked from that point on the stage. I had been looking there about a minute or two when the same person, I suppose, who went out of the box returned and spoke to me. He said he was connected with the theatre. We then had a few words together, when my attention was again drawn to the scenery on the stage. They had a curtain down that had recently been painted, I believe, and I stood there looking at that. Then I heard this man behind me doing something. In turning around to see what it was he was doing—I supposed he was looking down as I was—I noticed that he had a piece of wood; whether he had it put in under his coat or was taking it out I cannot say. The piece of wood was about three feet long and about as wide as my two fingers—maybe a little more in the centre—slanting a little towards each end from the centre. As I turned round he said, "The President is going to be here tonight." That was the first intimation I had of the expected presence of the President that night. I said, " He is?" He then said, " We are going to fix up the box for his reception. I suppose there is going to be a big crowd here, and we are going to endeavor to arrange it so that he won’t be disturbed." He then fixed this piece of wood into a small hole in the wall there as large as my thumb. I should think the hole to be an inch or an inch and a half long, and about three-quarters of an inch wide. He placed one end of this stick in the hole and it being a little too large took a knife and whittled it down a little. He also gouged out the hole a little for the purpose of making it fit. Then he placed it against the panel of the door across to the wall, forming an angle. He says, " The crowd may be so immense as to push the door open, and we want to fasten it so that this cannot be the case." He asked me if I thought that would hold it sufficiently tight. I told him I should judge that it would hold against a great pressure; that a hole would be punched through the panel of the door before it would give way. The wood was either oak or of North Carolina pine. I am not acquainted with that kind of wood, but I am rather of the impression it was North Carolina pine, which is a very tough wood, I believe. After he had fitted that to suit him we had a few words more together. I then heard some one come across the stage, back of the curtain.”

Rhodes said that the man in the box was John H. Surratt, without any doubt! He went out and in the box two or three times while Rhodes was there.

Rhodes further testified: “I heard some one passing behind the stage curtain. This man with whom I had been talking as soon as he heard this noise behind went immediately out of the box, then a short thick set man came in, a man I should judge a little taller than I am and good deal stouter. He hallooed for some one. This man that came in. He says, "halloo, halloo, Ned," or D ick, I don't know which. I think however, it was Ned, " Halloo, Ned, come here, bring out them things;" but the man did not answer that he was hallooing for. He repeated the call some three or four times, may be more. Finally I heard some one say, "Halloo," away down back by the curtain, he said " come here right off," or something to that effect. Then the man came up stairs. Where it was I don't know, it was back of this box leading from off towards the stage. I think he had one of these black satchels about eighteen inches long with something in it. This thick set man says to him, "We are behind time." He said that they had not heard that the President was going to be there until about an hour before, and that they had but a very short time in which to fix up for the occasion. He says to this slim man, " Go down to my office " (or room, I don't know which he said,) "and bring up that big easy chair," and I think he said big rocking chair. The man replied that he did not think he could carry it, it was so heavy. This other man replied, " Oh, yes, you can carry it;" and I think he told him that there was some one down there who would help him. Anyhow he went and brought it.”

I suspect that the man who was called “Ned” was Edman “Ned” Spangler. The man with whom Rhodes was talking and went immediately out of the box after hearing the noise, never returned. Rhodes left the theatre after approximately 15 minutes, after Ned came into the box.

Quite a story! As I said: new to me. I have three questions:

1. was the theater always open for public, or was it kept locked, during the day?
2. why was Rhodes not seen by Spangler? Did he ever spoke of him?
3. the stick which Rhodes described, which he says Surratt whittled down and stuck in that hole, was that the stick found in the box (used by Booth)?

Looking forward to your comments!

[RJNorton]

Kees, do you have Kate Larson's Assassin's Accomplice? She feels Susan Jackson was confused and explains on pp. 98-99. Another author who feels Susan Jackson was confused is Bill Richter in Last Confederate Heroes. Please see the posts on this page.

[John Fazio]

Kees, Roger, John, Laurie and Gene:

This is one of the more intractable mysteries of the war years. In my judgment, we are more likely to arrive at the truth, not by hanging our hats on this or that item of evidence, but by thinking of the matter globally. I say that because the evidence is conflicting, especially anything coming from the mouth or pen of Surratt, whose lies rolled off his lips like water off a duck's back. He told at least three different versions of his whereabouts between April 6 and 18, probably with the express purpose of confusing everyone, then and for all time. Let us, rather, look at the forest rather than the trees.

We know that Booth and Surratt were engaged in an active conspiracy against Federal leadership from at least December, 1864, if not before. Surratt's pedigree as a Secret Service agent dates to August, 1862; Booth's, probably the summer of 1864. Surratt had a hand in hiding the guns, etc., at the tavern; recruited Atzerodt and Powell; arranged with Smoot for a boat; met often with Booth at the boardinghouse and elsewhere after December 23, if not before; participated in the Jack Cade affair; was present at the Gautier's restaurant meeting; and participated in the Campbell Hospital episode. He told McMillan that he and Booth had spent $10,000 on their conspiracy ($150,000 today). He told Ste. Marie that "WE (my emphasis) killed Lincoln, the n____r's friend". In these circumstances, it makes no sense to postulate that from approximately April 1 through 20 they were not acting in concert. The evidence to the contrary is there; we have only to look at it. We know that when Surratt left Washington on the 4th, he stopped in New York to see Booth, but was told he was in Boston performing. We know that when he was in Montreal, he received a telegram from Booth telling him to return to Washington forthwith because their plans had changed. We know that in response thereto, he left immediately for Washington, according to McMillan. We know that when he was in Elmira, he telegraphed Booth in New York, but was advised that he had already left for Washington. Clearly, they were still acting in concert. Not only does the evidence take us there, but it fits with overall direction of their conspiracy by Richmond, inasmuch as Surratt was Benjamin's courier (per his biographer, Eli Evans) and made weekly trips to Richmond (per Ste. Marie) and inasmuch as Booth and Harbin were known to be close (they met before and after the assassination) and Harbin, by his own admission, reported directly to Davis. Thus Davis and Benjamin had to know what Booth and Surratt were doing and thus had to be firmly in control of their conspiracy. It is inconceivable, therefore, in these circumstances, that the two conspirators would have acted independently of each other. Secret Service agents operating under the direction of authority don't behave that way. Surratt's staying in Elmira to case out a prison for a possible break, therefore, pursuant to orders from Gen. E. G. Lee (rather than following orders from Booth), when Confederate POW's were already being exchanged and after Lee had already surrendered, is contrary to reason. Also contrary to reason is the supposition that Surratt, with the war coming to an end and the Confederacy crumbling, would take time out to soak up the scenery of lower New York state and blithely patronize haberdashers and tailors in Elmira, with Booth waiting for him in Washington and after he left Montreal "immediately" in response to Booth's call. Clearly, Surratt had other reasons for stopping off in Elmira (he had been there before, spreading a lot of Yankee gold around, he said). My conclusion, therefore, based on this global view of the matter, is that after a brief stop in Elmira, perhaps for the purpose of establishing an alibi should he need one, which he did, he continued on to Washington, arriving in plenty of time to help Booth. Pierrepont's Herculean effort to establish a last-minute dash by Surratt from Elmira to Washington was largely a waste of time and probably counter-productive; he was already there. As for the witnesses who put him in Elmira, only one of the five was unequivocal; the others hedged in some degree. The possibility of undue influence, or even of use of a Surratt double, cannot be excluded. (There is reference to a Surratt "personator" on p. 1226 of Edward's and Steers's tome.) The 13 witnesses who put him Washington cannot be ignored, especially the better, more convincing ones.

I realize that my conclusion is contrary to the conventional wisdom. But so much of the conventional wisdom surrounding the assassination has been shown to be wrong, in my opinion, that adding another casualty to the list does not cause me any great pain.
I do believe that Wild Bill is in accord with my conclusion, as he is with my thesis that multiple assassinations were ordered by the Confederate government. But let him speak for himself.

John