+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Assassination (/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Breaking a leg (/thread-505.html)
RE: Breaking a leg - Jim Garrett - 02-19-2013 09:21 PM
(02-19-2013 08:33 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote:(02-19-2013 08:19 PM)Gene C Wrote:(02-19-2013 07:56 PM)L Verge Wrote: I have a twelve-foot stepladder. Which one of you wants to volunteer to jump and break your fibula while wearing high boots and then see if you can run maybe fifty feet and mount a horse?
I still like Jim Garrett and Dave Taylor's reenactment plan on post 166
The things I do for the sake of research. Ok, have Jim get the pipe to bash my leg with...
Before I hit you in the leg, I will need you to sign a few releases.
RE: Breaking a leg - Rhatkinson - 02-19-2013 09:56 PM
Woods' report = disproval of Kauffman's theory. It's really that simple (to me at least.)
If you support Kauffman, ask yourself this: what was the evidence that Woods had (and so fervently believed) on 4/23/1865?
If it is a lost witness as Laurie surmises, then Kauffman is wrong when he says the "only" evidence is Booth, via his diary (Booth damn sure didn't talk to Wood.)
If it is a witness at Ford's who says Booth stumbled and could have been injured, then it ruins Kauffman's entire premise that "not one witness" (initially) claimed Booth was injured at Ford's. You can't have it both ways - witnesses can't simultaneously claim that Booth appeared uninjured yet also claim that the witnesses who commented on his stumble were so convinced as to believe the "stumble" caused his leg to break. It is one or the other.
When you pair this fatal flaw along with the testimony of Jones (who had first hand knowledge and no reason to lie), Kauffman's theory just doesn't pass muster.
Thoughts? (Kauffman backers: please answer the "what was Woods' evidence" question.)
Heath
Ps, Dave, I just realized you were the owner of bothiebarn.com. Congrats on a fantastic site. I love to read it.
RE: Breaking a leg - Dave Taylor - 02-19-2013 10:21 PM
While I doubt some of you will believe me, I am still undecided with how Booth broke his leg. Really I'm looking for a reliable piece of evidence to really sway me one way or the other. Here's how I look at the evidence we've discussed so far:
Mudd's statement - Unreliable as he is a co-conspirator. Cannot put any true faith in what he said.
Davy's statement - Same as above. Both men lied through their teeth to attempt to protect themselves.
Booth's diary - Full of hyperbole and exaggeration. This was Booth's last message to the world and he would say anything to make himself look heroic. However, I do give his words a bit more weight (still not much, mind you) than Mudd and Davy since these came straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak, and he wasn't trying to save his butt like the other two.
Lloyd - False. As I stated here, no where in the statements or testimony that actually came from Lloyd does he mention the idea that Booth told him his horse fell on him. Rather this comes from a summation of statements by Col. Foster. At the very least this is completely unreliable.
Thomas Davis, Mudd's farmhand - gives evidence of damage to Booth's horse, "lame in her front leg" and "piece of skin off on the inside of her left foreleg about as big as a silver dollar". Davis is unbiased and reliable to me. Though not proof of a fall, he does give legitimate evidence of damage to Booth's horse from something.
Wood's AM and PM reports - Problematic for both theories. While I understand Dr. Santos' and Laurie's idea that Wood might have dismissed Mudd's and Davis' statements due to some other source of information making him believe Mudd was lying, it is too farfetched to me. As I stated before, if Wood had concrete evidence to disprove Mudd's story, he would have become the prime witness in incriminating Dr. Mudd. Remember Mudd played it off that he did not know who Booth and Herold were or what they had done. If a source near Bryantown told Wood that Booth broke his leg in jumping to the box at Ford's, then Mudd would be up a creek without a paddle. Invesitgators through Wood would then have conclusive proof that Mudd not only knew who Booth and Herold were (a point they argued profusely at the trial) and that he knew Booth shot Lincoln when he was tending to him, proving his complicity in aiding the assassin's escape (something they desperately wanted to prove at the trial). To me, the language of Wood's reports tell a completely different story. In my eyes, once Wood heard that Booth had a broken leg, he created the idea that it happened in the jump to the stage. This, by itself is not a bad thing. That's putting two know facts together and that's what he was supposed to do as an investigator. But Wood also didn't believe Dr. Mudd, "The Dr. tells a tale not to be believed about their departure from his house..." Again, a very astute observation by Wood who knows better than to trust the words of this suspicious doctor. Then we go to the PM report. We know Wood already has the idea in his head that Booth broke his leg in jumping from the stage, and that he is slightly biased against Dr. Mudd. To me, that completely explains this: "The assassins changed horses. Herold was riding the bay mare obtained from Pumphrey's Stable, and it may be possible that she fell or threw off Booth and broke his leg. However, I believe as I have written this morning."
Jones - Thirty years later. Not involved with Booth's leg and even admits his writing over Booth's break in the theatre is just what, "has become history, and I need not dwell over it". Jones adds nothing to the discussion, in my eyes.
So far, I am still lacking a solid, reliable piece of evidence to turn me conclusively one way or another. No one has been able to prove to me either story which makes both equally plausible. In my eyes, neither theory is completely dismissed by the evidence. Until more evidence of weight is presented, neither has the advantage to me.
RE: Breaking a leg - wsanto - 02-20-2013 12:44 AM
It seems to me too coincidental that Woods surmised and then concluded without any evidence that Booth broke his leg at Ford's and then for Booth to make the identical claim in his diary. i guess it is possible.
The telegrams indicate that Woods considered both possibilities and seemed quite sure of his conclusion weighing (or ignoring) the facts as he knew them.
You are probably correct that the "lost" evidence, if any, could not be used to further discredit Mudd or it probably would have further incriminated him and sent him to the gallows. But, perhaps this evidence didn't pertain to Mudd directly and came from a source unrelated to Mudd.
As Laurie has mentioned, if there was lost evidence, it may have been lost due to its irrelevance to the trial. The cause of Booth's break was never a significant issue that required litigation.
On another matter, it is also, in my mind, equally likely that Booth and Herold would change horses due to the broken leg if the break occurred at Ford's or in a riding accident.
And finally, it is also possible that Booth and Jones never discussed the cause of the broken leg and that Jones simply included the accepted history in his book for the sake of completeness. But I really have a hard time believing that Booth's broken leg never came up in any conversation between them. It was the rate-limiting step in furthering Booth's escape. If it had happened in a horse fall, Booth would have likely relayed that to Jones and Jones would have included that in his book in stead of mentioning Booth jumping and breaking his leg at Ford's. Remember, he does mention the "cover" story of the horse fall when discussing Mudd and seems to dismiss it as such. Again this could be a recitation of accepted history but it seems unlikely as he was very close and very involved with this thing as it was taking place.
RE: Breaking a leg - RJNorton - 02-20-2013 06:27 AM
(02-19-2013 07:56 PM)L Verge Wrote: I still think that Wood had access to a statement made by someone in the theater - a statement that has now been lost or not yet located.
How complete is Tim Good's book? Is that essentially what we have? Then, if Jim and Laurie's estimate of 1500 patrons is correct, we have 1400 other folks who watched Booth cross the stage, and we do not have a record of their conversations with families, friends, neighbors, etc. We do not know whom these people talked to or what they said regarding how Booth moved on stage. Could any one (or more) of these 1400 folks have told the neighborhood that it looked like Booth injured himself when he hit the stage? I am sure there must have been a lot of talk that never made it into the newspapers, evidence, or courtroom.
P.S. Long ago, and I cannot remember where I read this, but at least one author feels the numbers in Ford's that night have been embellished. This person, and please forgive my aging brain as I do not recall the source, said he felt the actual attendance that night was more like 1000.
RE: Breaking a leg - J. Beckert - 02-20-2013 07:49 AM
While I favor the horse fall theory due to the physical evidence and the fact it guarantees a break exactly where Booth had one, I'm wondering if this wasn't over heard by a black person who then relayed it at some point to investigators. Blacks were not allowed to testify at the time, so no legal "weight" would be given to their statements. That would also explain why there's no source for it.
RE: Breaking a leg - Rhatkinson - 02-20-2013 08:14 AM
(02-19-2013 10:21 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote: Wood's AM and PM reports - Problematic for both theories. While I understand Dr. Santos' and Laurie's idea that Wood might have dismissed Mudd's and Davis' statements due to some other source of information making him believe Mudd was lying, it is too farfetched to me. As I stated before, if Wood had concrete evidence to disprove Mudd's story, he would have become the prime witness in incriminating Dr. Mudd. Remember Mudd played it off that he did not know who Booth and Herold were or what they had done. If a source near Bryantown told Wood that Booth broke his leg in jumping to the box at Ford's, then Mudd would be up a creek without a paddle. Invesitgators through Wood would then have conclusive proof that Mudd not only knew who Booth and Herold were (a point they argued profusely at the trial) and that he knew Booth shot Lincoln when he was tending to him, proving his complicity in aiding the assassin's escape (something they desperately wanted to prove at the trial). To me, the language of Wood's reports tell a completely different story. In my eyes, once Wood heard that Booth had a broken leg, he created the idea that it happened in the jump to the stage. This, by itself is not a bad thing. That's putting two know facts together and that's what he was supposed to do as an investigator. But Wood also didn't believe Dr. Mudd, "The Dr. tells a tale not to be believed about their departure from his house..." Again, a very astute observation by Wood who knows better than to trust the words of this suspicious doctor. Then we go to the PM report. We know Wood already has the idea in his head that Booth broke his leg in jumping from the stage, and that he is slightly biased against Dr. Mudd. To me, that completely explains this: "The assassins changed horses. Herold was riding the bay mare obtained from Pumphrey's Stable, and it may be possible that she fell or threw off Booth and broke his leg. However, I believe as I have written this morning."
Dave,
You make a good point about Wood (I apologize for calling him "Woods" above) using his evidence against Mudd at trial if it were so strong. However, I think Laurie is correct: the "evidence" may not have come from Mudd or his circle.
Above I wrote about my theory about Swann (or, more likely, someone related to Swann) being Wood's "evidence". This would make perfect sense as Swann could have overheard Booth telling Cox about the Ford's break, then relayed that to Wood when he also told him about Booth and Herold going inside Cox's home.
The pressure on a free black to recant this story against a powerful white man would be extraordinary, as it would show that not only did Cox invite in his home for 3 hours "strangers" who turned out to be the President's murders, but now Cox also KNEW who they were, which he would have to do if he Booth mentioned the Ford's break. This could have sent Cox to the gallows, so there would have been incredible pressure for Swann to go back to Wood and change his story.
This would explain Wood's seemingly frustrated tone when discussing the Ford's vs Horse theories. He knew that Cox was told by Booth about Ford's, but his witness confirming that recanted his story, which Wood knew was a lie done to protet the witness and his family from retribution but could not prove. Swann was in enough trouble for contradicting Cox, he would have been in SERIOUS danger if he led to Cox being hanged.
RE: Breaking a leg - RJNorton - 02-20-2013 09:54 AM
I am not a doctor and do not know the veracity of this, but the web page here says things like, "Most of fibula fractures are not identified easily and some individuals live with fibula fracture with mild pain for long time" and "Patients with fibula fracture can walk with minor discomfort as the fibula bone bears less body weight."
RE: Breaking a leg - Rsmyth - 02-20-2013 10:30 AM
I think Wsanto, Rhatkinson, Laurie and Dave have pieced together all the evidence quite well. Until something else comes along to weigh the argument one way or the other, I think it's a toss up.
RE: Breaking a leg - wsanto - 02-20-2013 01:21 PM
(02-20-2013 07:49 AM)J. Beckert Wrote: While I favor the horse fall theory due to the physical evidence and the fact it guarantees a break exactly where Booth had one, I'm wondering if this wasn't over heard by a black person who then relayed it at some point to investigators. Blacks were not allowed to testify at the time, so no legal "weight" would be given to their statements. That would also explain why there's no source for it.
I was wondering about that very thing and going to ask that question. That is very interesting. Now could a white person testify to what a black person told them? That is, could Wood testify to what one of Mudd's servants told him? If not, that becomes a much more likely source for the "lost" evidence than a witness at Fords. I agree with Heath that Mr. Swann may also have been the source. Did he testify at the trial? One more question--was Mr.Davis, Mudd's farmhand a black man or a white man? Was he a witness?
(02-20-2013 09:54 AM)RJNorton Wrote: I am not a doctor and do not know the veracity of this, but the web page here says things like, "Most of fibula fractures are not identified easily and some individuals live with fibula fracture with mild pain for long time" and "Patients with fibula fracture can walk with minor discomfort as the fibula bone bears less body weight."
There are different types of fractures.
Stress fractures are the most minor and are hardly fractures at all. People can walk on these even in weight-bearing bones with minimal to moderate discomfort. These usually do not require casting because there is no movement of the fracture line and the body can heal this injury with just time.
Simple and Compound fractures are more severe and require immobilization either with casting or surgical reduction and fixation.
If someone suffers a simple or compound fracture of a weight-bearing bone in the leg or ankle this would usually stop them in their tracks as they would not be able to bear any weight on the fracture. Also, if one breaks their fibula at the level of the ankle joint (where it articulates with the bones of the foot) that would also be hard to overcome.
But a fracture of the fibula a few inches above the ankle could be overcome and very often is walked upon for some time if the person has a relatively high pain threshold. Of course, this fracture, over the course of time, will become increasingly inflammed and more painful and, if untreated, will typically not bear weight.
RE: Breaking a leg - J. Beckert - 02-20-2013 03:03 PM
I can't answer any of your questions, Bill, but they brought to mind the fact that Booth asked to enter Jones' home for a cup of hot coffee and Jones refused because of the servant's presence. I've never heard if they were black or white. Same for Mudd's, but I do believe Booth's crutch was made by a black man.
RE: Breaking a leg - RJNorton - 02-20-2013 03:31 PM
Bill, Thomas Davis did testify at the trial, and he is not listed as a black man. Swan did not testify at the trial.
RE: Breaking a leg - Bill Richter - 02-20-2013 03:57 PM
I swear that Thos Davis was from England?
RE: Breaking a leg - RJNorton - 02-20-2013 04:06 PM
That's what I thought, too - an Englishman. Oh my, now I am confused. Am I thinking of John Best? I think Best was an Englishman who made the crutch for Booth.
RE: Breaking a leg - Rick Smith - 02-20-2013 04:53 PM
(02-20-2013 04:06 PM)RJNorton Wrote: That's what I thought, too - an Englishman. Oh my, now I am confused. Am I thinking of John Best? I think Best was an Englishman who made the crutch for Booth.
Joe,
The servant that Jones referred to was most likely Henry Woodland, Jones' former slave, now a hired man.
Roger,
John Best was the Englishman. He is listed in subsequent federal census records for the area.
Rick