Where was John Surratt on April 14, 1865 ?

[Susan Higginbotham]

(03-20-2017 06:03 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 04:44 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(03-18-2017 06:17 PM)brtmchl Wrote:  Did Susan Jackson ever speak of his physical appearance during her testimony?

Mike, long ago I think I read somewhere that Susan Jackson had her dates confused. In other words, what she described in her testimony did not really happen on April 14th. Rather it happened much earlier (maybe in late March or very early April). Now I have looked for this in several books and cannot find where I read it. Does anyone recall ever reading something like this?

Roger, this is new for me, never read about it. But I remember a sort of confirmation that John Surratt was in the Surratt boarding house on the 14th. I think it was Richard Smoot who wrote in his “The Unwritten History of the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln” (1908) that he visited the Surratt boarding house on April 12th because he wanted to see John Surratt about something. John was not there, but Mary Surratt told him that he would be there on the 14th.

Smoot also wrote that when he returned on the 14th, he asked Mary Surratt "if John had returned, and she replied that he had not."

Note also that in Susan Jackson's testimony at John Surratt's trial, she said that Mary had asked her if John did not resemble his sister Anna. If the conversation did indeed take place on April 14, and Mary had reason to know that John was up to something, why would she draw the attention of Susan, a servant she barely knew and a potential government witness, to John's personal appearance?

[RJNorton]

I finally found what I had vaguely remembered from years ago regarding Susan Jackson's testimony. It was in Father Jacob Ambrose Walter's May 25, 1891, statement.

Father Walter wrote:

"He (John Surratt) came to Washington on the 4th of April, took supper at home, changed his clothes and left for Elmira the next morning. The testimony of Susan Jackson, Mrs. Surratt's servant, was correct as to facts, but she mistook the date, saying it was April 14th. It was ten days previous to the 14th of April."

[Gene C]

Just a thought........
Perhaps Mary thought that JWB would never go through with it, so why worry or think much about it.
He was a brash young man with lofty ideas, but limited follow through.
But as the day wore on, she had increased reason to worry.

Perhaps when she asked Weichmann to pray for her intentions, her intention was for Booth to change his mind at the last minute?
Her concern would be more for Johnny's safety than JWB.
(she still couldn't share with Weichmann what her intentions were)

[loetar44]

(03-20-2017 02:53 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  I finally found what I had vaguely remembered from years ago regarding Susan Jackson's testimony. It was in Father Jacob Ambrose Walter's May 25, 1891, statement.

Father Walter wrote:

"He (John Surratt) came to Washington on the 4th of April, took supper at home, changed his clothes and left for Elmira the next morning. The testimony of Susan Jackson, Mrs. Surratt's servant, was correct as to facts, but she mistook the date, saying it was April 14th. It was ten days previous to the 14th of April."

We know Father Walter from his fidelity to the cause of Mrs. Surratt. He strongly believed in her innocence, but waited 25 years to give the “true statement of the facts” in a paper presented before the Catholic Historical Society in NY on May 25, 1891.

Guy W. Moore writes in “The Case of Mrs. Surratt: Her Controversial Trial and Execution for Conspiracy in the Lincoln Assassination”: “Father Walter explained that he had waited a quarter of a century to permit people to calm down, to lay aside prejudices. Speaking at a meeting of the Catholic Historical Society in New York about the same time, he said of Mrs. Surratt: “I attended to her spiritual wants until she went to the scaffold. I cannot of course violate my vows to the church and tell the secrets of the confessional, but I will say that from what I know, Mrs. Surratt was innocent of any complicity in that great crime.” And he added that he believed she died “as innocent of that crime as a babe unborn.”

In the May 25, 1891 statement we also can read about Mary Surratt’s declaration of her innocence: “Father, I wish to say something.” ”Well what is it my child?” ”That I am innocent.” Those were according to Father Walter Mary’s “exact words” just before she was led to the scaffold.

That Susan Jackson was mistaken ten days underlines not alone Mary’s innocence but also the innocence of her son. But, have we to believe that Susan Jackson was indeed mistaken? And was Mary as innocent as an unborn baby, as he said? That's another discussion I fear...

Now I want to read the whole statement of Father Walter.

[L Verge]

(03-20-2017 03:46 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 02:53 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  I finally found what I had vaguely remembered from years ago regarding Susan Jackson's testimony. It was in Father Jacob Ambrose Walter's May 25, 1891, statement.

Father Walter wrote:

"He (John Surratt) came to Washington on the 4th of April, took supper at home, changed his clothes and left for Elmira the next morning. The testimony of Susan Jackson, Mrs. Surratt's servant, was correct as to facts, but she mistook the date, saying it was April 14th. It was ten days previous to the 14th of April."

We know Father Walter from his fidelity to the cause of Mrs. Surratt. He strongly believed in her innocence, but waited 25 years to give the “true statement of the facts” in a paper presented before the Catholic Historical Society in NY on May 25, 1891.

Guy W. Moore writes in “The Case of Mrs. Surratt: Her Controversial Trial and Execution for Conspiracy in the Lincoln Assassination”: “Father Walter explained that he had waited a quarter of a century to permit people to calm down, to lay aside prejudices. Speaking at a meeting of the Catholic Historical Society in New York about the same time, he said of Mrs. Surratt: “I attended to her spiritual wants until she went to the scaffold. I cannot of course violate my vows to the church and tell the secrets of the confessional, but I will say that from what I know, Mrs. Surratt was innocent of any complicity in that great crime.” And he added that he believed she died “as innocent of that crime as a babe unborn.”

In the May 25, 1891 statement we also can read about Mary Surratt’s declaration of her innocence: “Father, I wish to say something.” ”Well what is it my child?” ”That I am innocent.” Those were according to Father Walter Mary’s “exact words” just before she was led to the scaffold.

That Susan Jackson was mistaken ten days underlines not alone Mary’s innocence but also the innocence of her son. But, have we to believe that Susan Jackson was indeed mistaken? And was Mary as innocence as an unborn baby, as he said? That's another discussion I fear...

Now I want to read the whole statement of Father Walter.

Just a thought here: Note that Fr. Walter references the "great crime" and also says "innocent of that crime." Could the emphasis on "great" and "that" indicate that she did not know that the conspiracy had turned to murder?

I have spent my adult life hearing the old-timers here saying that the last confession was, "Bless me father, for I am innocent. I did not know what they intended to do." That's why I am a fence-rider when it comes to her execution. I understand that her actions up to within hours of the assassination justified it in the eyes of the court, but I think prison was more justified. Of course, a lot of good my opinion does now.

[loetar44]

I’m still puzzling and still have questions. Therefore I want to revive the discussion.

(1) If we do believe that Joseph Dye was mixed up with Lewis Carland, that Susan Jackson was confused and mistook the date, that there are serious problems with Theodore Rhodes testimony and if we assume that all other witnesses who saw Surratt (and some of them did know Surratt very good) in the streets of Washington city on April 14th are mistaken, we still have barber Charles Wood’s testimony. Is his testimony also unreliable? If the answer is “yes”, why?

(2) How reliable are the testimonies of Charles Stewart, John Cass, Frank Atkinson, Joseph Carroll? They all did not know John Surratt and they all testified that they saw him on April 13th OR April 14th in Elmira (note: not ON April 14th). And how reliable is the testimony of Augustus Bissell, who also did not know Surratt but saw him on April 14th in the Brainard House in Elmira.

[RJNorton]

Another government witness who seems sincerely believable (to me) was an attorney named Benjamin Vanderpoel. He said he saw Surratt with Booth in a saloon on the afternoon of April 14th.

Here is a small portion of Vanderpoel's testimony:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Q. Did you ever see Surratt before?

A. I cannot say that I did.

Q. Did you ever see him since?

A. Not until this morning.

Q. You have examined him very carefully this morning?

A. I noticed one alteration. The goatee he has on now he did not have
then.

Q. You have examined him carefully, and you have no sort of doubt
the man?

A. I have no sort of doubt he was the man I saw in that place.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Does anyone know if that is correct - did Surratt not have a goatee on April 14th, 1865?

[L Verge]

(03-22-2017 06:36 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Another government witness who seems sincerely believable (to me) was an attorney named Benjamin Vanderpoel. He said he saw Surratt with Booth in a saloon on the afternoon of April 14th.

Here is a small portion of Vanderpoel's testimony:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Q. Did you ever see Surratt before?

A. I cannot say that I did.

Q. Did you ever see him since?

A. Not until this morning.

Q. You have examined him very carefully this morning?

A. I noticed one alteration. The goatee he has on now he did not have
then.

Q. You have examined him carefully, and you have no sort of doubt
the man?

A. I have no sort of doubt he was the man I saw in that place.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Does anyone know if that is correct - did Surratt not have a goatee on April 14th, 1865?

We have had so many visitors today (school groups and senior groups as well as walk-ins) that my brain is on overload. I don't remember ever even thinking about Surratt's goatee in 1865, but what does the reward poster say - if anything? My instinct is that he didn't, but at this point I'm not sure if I have a goatee!

The photos online are mainly dated 1867 and 1868 (in his Zouave uniform and also his Garibaldi jacket) and show him without a goatee. There is one undated photo that shows definite chin whiskers (need a true definition of what constituted a goatee in 1860s; I think it varies over the years). I can't find a date on that particular photo, however.

He must have liked the large handlebar from the Zouave photo because he kept that style through the rest of his life. We have photos that the grandchildren shared with us in the 1970s, when we put together a family reunion for them here at the museum. That appendage turned very white over the years, but it was basically the same shape as in 1867. His brother, Isaac, had an even more impressive "walrus" one with chin whiskers also.

[Susan Higginbotham]

The reward poster doesn't mention a goatee:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...poster.jpg

[loetar44]

(03-22-2017 05:13 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  The reward poster doesn't mention a goatee:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...poster.jpg

I once read that the photo which was used for the reward poster was found in Mary Surratt's boarding house and that it was actually a photo of Isaac, not John.

[Susan Higginbotham]

(03-22-2017 05:45 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 05:13 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  The reward poster doesn't mention a goatee:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...poster.jpg

I once read that the photo which was used for the reward poster was found in Mary Surratt's boarding house and that it was actually a photo of Isaac, not John.

In his book Weichmann wrote that it was he who persuaded Mrs. Surratt to give a photograph of John to the authorities. He would have certainly known whether or not it was a photograph of John.

[L Verge]

(03-22-2017 06:40 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 05:45 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 05:13 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  The reward poster doesn't mention a goatee:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...poster.jpg

I once read that the photo which was used for the reward poster was found in Mary Surratt's boarding house and that it was actually a photo of Isaac, not John.

In his book Weichmann wrote that it was he who persuaded Mrs. Surratt to give a photograph of John to the authorities. He would have certainly known whether or not it was a photograph of John.

In the 1970s, when we were young and eager, Joan Chaconas and I spent one day at the Library of Congress going over photographic collections. I was looking for a photo of my family's home (as it appeared ca. 1875) that had been used at Surrattsville High School way back in the 1960s when they put on the play about Mary Surratt.

Never found that photo, but we did find the standing Surratt photo used on the reward posters. However, that photo at the LOC was distinctly labeled as being Isaac Surratt, not John. In the 1980s, Msgr Robert Keesler found that same photo in CDV form in a flea market in Baltimore. On the back was written John Surratt.

We know of only one other photo of Isaac. In it, he appears to be in his early 40s, and the photo was used with his obituary in 1907. To this day, I still think the LOC was right. In a letter to his cousin, John once wrote that Isaac was the only one of the children who looked like "Ma."

Both Anna and John appear paler and somewhat fragile to me in other photos. The one that I think is Isaac looks like he could fight for the Confederate Army and also grow older and muscular like the Isaac in the obituary photo. He definitely was the better-looking of the two sons.

Is there an outside chance that Weichmann lied about the photo being of John in order to throw the authorities off track?

[Susan Higginbotham]

(03-22-2017 07:30 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 06:40 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 05:45 PM)loetar44 Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 05:13 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  The reward poster doesn't mention a goatee:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...poster.jpg

I once read that the photo which was used for the reward poster was found in Mary Surratt's boarding house and that it was actually a photo of Isaac, not John.

In his book Weichmann wrote that it was he who persuaded Mrs. Surratt to give a photograph of John to the authorities. He would have certainly known whether or not it was a photograph of John.

In the 1970s, when we were young and eager, Joan Chaconas and I spent one day at the Library of Congress going over photographic collections. I was looking for a photo of my family's home (as it appeared ca. 1875) that had been used at Surrattsville High School way back in the 1960s when they put on the play about Mary Surratt.

Never found that photo, but we did find the standing Surratt photo used on the reward posters. However, that photo at the LOC was distinctly labeled as being Isaac Surratt, not John. In the 1980s, Msgr Robert Keesler found that same photo in CDV form in a flea market in Baltimore. On the back was written John Surratt.

We know of only one other photo of Isaac. In it, he appears to be in his early 40s, and the photo was used with his obituary in 1907. To this day, I still think the LOC was right. In a letter to his cousin, John once wrote that Isaac was the only one of the children who looked like "Ma."

Both Anna and John appear paler and somewhat fragile to me in other photos. The one that I think is Isaac looks like he could fight for the Confederate Army and also grow older and muscular like the Isaac in the obituary photo. He definitely was the better-looking of the two sons.

Is there an outside chance that Weichmann lied about the photo being of John in order to throw the authorities off track?

Weichmann, who saw Isaac for the first time at John Surratt's trial, described him as a "dark, thickset, powerfully built man, unlike any of the rest of the family."

In his book, Weichmann said that at the time he procured John's photograph, he believed John to be innocent of any crime and hoped that the photo would prove that he was not Seward's then-unidentified assailant.

[RJNorton]

In his book on John Surratt, Andy Jampoler writes, "Passing 140 years later, the answer to the key question - where Surratt was the night Lincoln was shot - is not more certain than it was in 1867, although the defense's witnesses from Elmira sound persuasive today." I would say the same for some of the prosecution witnesses.

[Wild Bill]

So would I, Roger, hence you pays your money and takes your choice