What Was The Role of David Herold

[wsanto]

(04-15-2013 08:33 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.

[L Verge]

I think Powell's version of events as related to his pastoral minister are to be believed. That man had to have someone to confide in after what he had been through, and no family was showing up. Am I safe to say that confessions made to any cleric are not subject to interrogation or witness in court?

There were certainly cheap hotels, but every establishment in D.C. had to be under surveillance at that point. I don't think Powell would have been interested in ladies of the evening at that point. Anyone running a safehouse would be extra wary at that point also.

Why is the well-researched history over the past 50-75 years so hard to believe? Don't you (meaning more than just Gene) think that better researchers than we have thought about all these possibilities and searched for - and found - evidence to confirm or deny these types of "what ifs?" I certainly believe that there are new things to discover, but to me, we need to be looking at key questions such as who masterminded the operations instead of why Powell came back to the Surratt House.

[JMadonna]

(04-15-2013 02:32 PM)wsanto Wrote:  

(04-15-2013 08:33 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.

[Gene C]

Why Powell returned to the Surratt house has a lot to do with the guilt or inocence of Mary Surratt. Did he show up at her door because there was no other place to go? Did he have no other options? He may not have been interested in "ladies of the evening", but he might have been interested in whatever help he could get from someone to help him get away, someone like Ella Star perhaps. Someone who didn't care for the police or law enforcement authorities. There were a few people who hated Lincoln and what he was trying to do, that might have helped Powell. He seemed to think there was someone in Baltimore, why souldn't we also consider their might be someone also in Washington? I never would have imagined he would head north to Baltimore, till BettyO mentioned it and has researched it to a point that it now seems a real posibility, and as far as I know, this is a fairly new development

We have noted historians, people whose work I respect, that disagree on some things. We also have some "supposed historians" that are not very good researchers (and I'm not just talking about Bill O'Reilly & crew). Just watch some of the garbage on the history channel. If people have already researched the "what ifs", that's great. I'm just asking questions because I don't know and if someone else does, please share it with me. Some of this stuff just doesn't add up to me.

Sorry if I offended anyone by seeming to doubt their research, but their research has created a few new questions. I haven't spent as much time on Lincoln Assassination history like some of you have, and I don't have the training in historical research. I'm amazed at what you folks find and know. I haven't thought all of this through, so please if I ask something, I'm not doing it to irritate you (well usually I'm not). I 've written enough things on this site that you have to know I'm not trying to show I'm smarter or more intuative than anyone. I'm even interested in learning more about the unusual stuff Ray Neff wrote. Thanks

[L Verge]

I apologize, Gene. I think I've been in this business for so long that I fail to understand other people's questions and concerns sometimes. You caught me with my school teacher mode turned off today. I should never get grouchy with someone wanting to question things. I was trained to encourage questions and new ideas. Feel free to slap me again when I get impatient.

[Gene C]

I can't get angry with you Laurie, I enjoy your input and the conversations back and forth to much. You are one of the members that makes learning here so much fun.

And I messed up in post #259. When I said we also have some "supposed historians"..., I was not refering to anyone on this site. I meant folks like the Potter Papers People and other attention grabbers, who take historical events and documents either out of context or manufacture them to prove their theories.

[John Fazio]

(04-14-2013 11:51 PM)Gene C Wrote:  

(04-14-2013 11:02 PM)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 05:05 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(04-15-2013 02:32 PM)wsanto Wrote:  

(04-15-2013 08:33 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

[MaddieM]

(04-15-2013 01:32 PM)Gene C Wrote:  I'm just trying to stirr up some conversation here.

I'll give you he probably got thrown from his horse, but he managed to figure out to go to Mrs Surratts at night, with lots of military people around. The place had to be lit up some? What time was it and how many soldiers/detectives were there at the time he got arrested? Why not just keep walking and check back in 30 minites or so? How long was it after he had been thrown and lost his horse?

If he was planning on going to Baltimore, why didn't he head in that direction. He had money. If he was heading that way, what changed his mind? Fear of getting caught? His back up plan, if he had one, didn't work out to well. I'll also grant that he was probably scared out of his mind, had a bad headache, but he had more war-combat-escape experience than Booth, and was probably a resourcefull guy. After all he was selected (or was he the only one who volunteered) for this mission. Somebody higher up must have thought he had a chance. I don't think we can blame it all on falling off a horse and bumping his head badly. Some of these questions we will never know the answers to, but it doesn't add up to me (I watched a bunch of crime shows this weekend)

But then again, I could be wrong. Convince me.

Part of me has always had a feeling he kind of gave up... He was well known to have been extremely repentent almost immediately after his crime, and all through the trial, actually wanting to die for what he'd done. He'd had three days of very personal introspection as he lay in hiding, and perhaps, who knows, some part of him wanted to just hand himself in, and take his chances and he was just fatalistic about being caught. With his army background and the year spent with Mosby, I'm not sure Powell could not have been resourceful enough to get himself out of Washington in some way. But if you put as a barrier, a state of mind that has just given up, was defeated by guilt and remorse, etc then perhaps that explains the madness of returning to Mary Surratt's. Just a thought.

[Gene C]

Maddie, that's a realistic theory. Now that you mention it, I don't remember reading much about him having a confrontational or combative attitude once he was caught. That ties into the fact that he was the "mystery man" throughout much of the trial. Since J Beckert was in law enforcement, I would be interested in his opinion

[J. Beckert]

I think Maddie brings up some good points. While Booth yelled Sic Semper, Powell stated I'm mad. Two different mindsets there. Booth was defiant to the bitter end. Powell just walked in and complied with his arrest. Some folks who are filled with venom will do anything to get away. A strong young man like Powell could have given them quite a tussle. But he didn't. I've had people jump over the guardrail are run into the woods like they were on fire. After a day or two in the outdoors, they're usually ready to submit to arrest. I think the fact he was outdoors for a few days and may have been disgusted with himself for what he did figure in and may explain his actions at the boardinghouse.

[MaddieM]

(04-16-2013 09:16 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Maddie, that's a realistic theory. Now that you mention it, I don't remember reading much about him having a confrontational or combative attitude once he was caught. That ties into the fact that he was the "mystery man" throughout much of the trial. Since J Beckert was in law enforcement, I would be interested in his opinion

One must also take into account Powell's background, his childhood, the nurturing, strict but loving environment he was raised in, where religion played a large part in his life. He wasn't a yahoo, he was well brought up under family morals, and never displayed, other than having a hot temper, that he was psychopathic or had murderous tendancies; he certainly wasn't a text book killer, assassin, or a congenital fool.

He was tall, strong, courageous, a hardened soldier, perhaps bitter about the war, the loss of his brother, the way his life had panned out, I've no doubt it was this alone that allowed him to do the damage he did, but he was also vulnerable, young, and emotionally unsophisticated compared to the more worldly schemes of JWB. He made a terrible mistake due to naivete. I don't believe he was a killer. I believe if he had been, he would have killed Seward.

[BettyO]

Good points, both John and Maddie! Very good points!!

[Linda Anderson]

(04-16-2013 10:32 AM)MaddieM Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 09:16 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Maddie, that's a realistic theory. Now that you mention it, I don't remember reading much about him having a confrontational or combative attitude once he was caught. That ties into the fact that he was the "mystery man" throughout much of the trial. Since J Beckert was in law enforcement, I would be interested in his opinion

One must also take into account Powell's background, his childhood, the nurturing, strict but loving environment he was raised in, where religion played a large part in his life. He wasn't a yahoo, he was well brought up under family morals, and never displayed, other than having a hot temper, that he was psychopathic or had murderous tendancies; he certainly wasn't a text book killer, assassin, or a congenital fool.

He was tall, strong, courageous, a hardened soldier, perhaps bitter about the war, the loss of his brother, the way his life had panned out, I've no doubt it was this alone that allowed him to do the damage he did, but he was also vulnerable, young, and emotionally unsophisticated compared to the more worldly schemes of JWB. He made a terrible mistake due to naivete. I don't believe he was a killer. I believe if he had been, he would have killed Seward.

Maddie, I think the only reason that Powell didn't kill Seward was that Seward's nurse George Robinson stopped him from doing so.

However, I do think that it may have been difficult for Powell to decide to kill Fred Seward. We will never know for certain (unless Betty finds more information) what Powell was thinking when he turned to go down the stairs when Fred Seward confronted him in front of Secretary Seward's bedroom. Did Powell hesitate knowing he would have to kill Fred Seward before he could kill Secretary Seward? Or, as some writers have suggested, was he just pretending to go downstairs so he could take Fred Seward by surprise?

Once he decided to go through with it, Powell brutally attacked Fred Seward and I believe, would have definitely killed Secretary Seward had it not been for the brave actions of George Robinson.

[J. Beckert]

I think he turned to feign leaving so he could discreetly pull his revolver. I also think if that gun didn't misfire/malfunction, he'd have killed Seward and his son. I don't think he planned on having to use the knife and after he started with it, he may have found it was too brutal for him. Booth stabbed Rathbone once to get him away and slashed back at him as he grabbed his coat. He wasn't concerned with killing him. If Booth's gun had misfired, he may have made the same mess at Ford's as Powell did at Seward's.

[Linda Anderson]

Joe, what do think Powell would have done if Robinson had run out of the room or hadn't been there to begin with? The only other person in the room at that time was Fanny.