Breaking a leg

[wsanto]

(02-20-2013 02:03 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:  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.

Jones also had 10 children. He states in his book that, after he denied Booth's request to enter his house, he went in and collected food from the supper table to take out to Booth and Herold. It is interesting to read how he did this quietly and assumed that no one really noticed what he was doing and, if they did, didn't dare to ask.

It is also interesting to read his clear recollection of details with regard to dealing with Booth. That helps me put more weight on his recollection. He was smart and clearly capable of gathering the facts he needed for his work and executing his mission.

[Rhatkinson]

Again, I am waiting for someone from the Kauffman theory camp to answer this question:

What was the evidence that Wood mentioned?

(1) A Ford's patron who speculated Booth broke his leg during his stumble to the stage? If so, how can you claim that "not one witness" believed Booth to be injured at Ford's?

(2) A Ford's patron who was certain Booth broke his leg on the stage or a witness who overheard Booth/Herold relaying the Ford's break version, but who is lost to history? If so, how can you claim the "only evidence" of a Ford's break was Booth himself?

It MUST be one of these two theories. What other evidence could Wood have possibly received?

Heath

[J. Beckert]

There is no evidence to Wood's claim, Heath. Dave Taylor posted the telegrams and I think that's the first most folks have heard of them. It's the first I have, anyway. The idea that he may have picked this idea up from someone in his investigation could be a possibility, but nothing points to anyone with certainty.

[Rhatkinson]

(02-20-2013 08:48 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:  There is no evidence to Wood's claim, Heath. Dave Taylor posted the telegrams and I think that's the first most folks have heard of them. It's the first I have, anyway. The idea that he may have picked this idea up from someone in his investigation could be a possibility, but nothing points to anyone with certainty.

Well my only point is, "what is Wood referring to?" It must be something. Wood didn't just invent the Ford's break theory out of thin air. All we are told by the Kauffman theorists is that Booth himself (via his diary) was the only basis for the Ford's break. We can all agree that Booth didn't talk to Wood, so what WAS the basis for Wood's fervent belief?

It had to be either: some evidence that is lost to history, or that Wood was a lunatic who made up conclusions without ANY basis in fact. What is more likely?

Heath

[wsanto]

The Wood telegrams are quite a revelation. In my opinion, they are truly an amazing breakthrough with regard to the issue of Booth's broken leg.

Up to Dave Taylor's making this reveal in this forum there was scant evidence that Booth broke his leg at Ford's.

Yet despite this scant evidence, history had taught us that Booth broke his leg falling awkwardly to the stage during his initial escape. For over 100 years Booth's claim plus the incontrovertible fact the he fell awkwardly had been enough evidence until it was challenged by Mr. Kauffman's research.

Mr. Kauffman has made an excellent case that history was wrong and that Booth actually broke his leg in a horse fall between the Navy Yard Bridge and Surrattsville. A lot of smart people have discarded this previously accepted history and subscribed to Kauffman's relatively new theory.

Now we have the Wood telegrams which reveal that there must be something more to the story. Something that has not been discovered and might never be discovered. Wood either created the leap theory based entirely on his own deduction or he learned something that convinced him to discard what Mudd told the investigators about Booth's horse falling and what Davis' claimed about the condition of the Bay Mare.

If it was his own theory, based solely on his own deduction, he must have felt awfully smart when Booth's diary confirmed it weeks later. If you subscribe to Mr. Kauffman's theory this is what you have to believe.

I'll be quite honest, I don't believe Wood based his theory on his own deduction. The telegrams indicate that he is rather convinced; more so than one, if not a complete egomaniac, would be of his own power of deduction. The tone of the last telegram especially indicates, to me at least, that he learned this story from someone that knew the truth and convinced him of this conclusion.

Perhaps it is someone that could not be a witness because of the color of his or her skin or their position in society or the potential repercussion of their testimony. Unfortunately, this evidence may be forever lost to history unless Wood has left behind a yet undiscovered memoir or diary that indicates his thinking at this time.

[RJNorton]

The purpose of this forum is to look at the evidence from all angles in a mature, civil manner without personally attacking others. And that is exactly what has happened here. This is a fascinating discussion, and I've read every single post. Like Jonathan, I never tire of the topic as all sorts of interesting ideas have been presented in the various posts. Kudos to all involved and the polite manner in which the debate has progressed.

I think we are doing exactly what Mr. James O. Hall would have loved. Several years ago I asked Laurie if Mr. Hall ever accepted Mike Kauffman's theory. She said no - to his dying day he believed the break happened in the leap at Ford's - that Booth's ankle rolled awkwardly and the little bone snapped as he hit the stage.

HOWEVER, Laurie also said that Mr. Hall was always open to new theories and never closed his mind on an open question. He was willing to listen to all possibilities. I wish somehow Mr. Hall could be part of this discussion, but I am sure he is following the ongoing posts closely from heaven. We will try to get to the bottom of it, Mr. Hall!

[Jim Garrett]

Life was so much simpler when Booth just broke his leg leaping from the box.

As they say, We agree to disagree.

[J. Beckert]

Very true, Jim, but I think Bill summed it up rather well. Wood may have received reports of a man matching Booth's description that had an injured leg and just concluded it happened in the 11 1/2 foot jump. Coupling this with the initial reports of his awkward landing, it's logical, but by no means conclusive.

[Rsmyth]

Roger, I agree 100 percent. The people involved in this disscussion have thought about the issue, looked at all the evidence and stated their case in a manner worthy of any lawyer. It may not be solved but it has been broken down to its finest points.

[Rhatkinson]

(02-21-2013 07:56 AM)Rsmyth Wrote:  Roger, I agree 100 percent. The people involved in this disscussion have thought about the issue, looked at all the evidence and stated their case in a manner worthy of any lawyer. It may not be solved but it has been broken down to its finest points.

Hey! Don't insult us by comparing us to lawyers! (j/k, since I am a lawyer, I suppose that I shouldn't be offended.)

I'm in a strange profession where a few nudnicks ruin it for the rest of us. A law professor of mine had a great saying that I've always found to be true: everybody hates lawyers, but everyone loves their lawyer.

Heath

ps - Booth broke his leg at Ford's. (I just couldn't help myself....)

---

I actually wrote Mike Kauffman about his response to the Wood reports and his wife, Mary, was kind enough to ask Mike and respond to me with his reply. Here is what she sent me from Mike.

Thank you so much for your kind words about Mike's book. I am Mary, Mike's wife, and I am answering for him because it is my website. Mike is extremely busy with work and I told him I would create and maintain a database for him. I don't think he has even looked at it and he might be mortified if he did.

I did pass on your question to him tonight, and he answered that he really does not know how Wood came up with the idea that Booth was injured in Ford's Theatre. Wood knew about as much about what happened at Ford's as you or Mike. That is to say, he was not a witness to the event. Wood was in Cincinnati the night of the assassination. In the report of 4/23/1865, Wood also states it might be possible that Booth was hurt when his horse threw him. It sounds like Wood was just guessing about what had happened. Mike says it is interesting to note that Wood also thought Dr. Mudd was innocent, although people don't put a lot of stock in that statement.

Booth's "diary" is full of self-serving lies--Booth didn't move through thousands of Lincoln's friends, wasn't stopped, and, no matter where the bone was broken it was not tearing at his flesh. So, why do people choose to believe the ambiguous statement, "In jumping broke my leg?"

As I'm sure you've noticed, there simply isn't enough room in one book (Mike's book is about 1/3 of the original manuscript) or website to address every thought or piece of evidence. For example, the summary I put on Mike's website does not mention that Booth had complained to two people earlier on the day of the assassination that his horse was very difficult to manage. Booth saw himself as quite a horseman. I can't imagine that he would want to admit that he got hurt when the horse (and a female one at that) fell on him.

If you were investigating the assassination of a president, and witnesses testified that the killer had hurt himself in the commission of the crime, where would you focus your investigation? You would probably start your search with all the local hospitals and doctors. This is not what happened in the first few days of the search for Booth, and one must ask why. In fact, Lt. David Dana (who had been in Bryantown since Saturday) took no action when told by a local doctor that two men had stopped at the home of his cousin, Dr. Samuel Mudd, on the morning after the assassination. It was only when he reported this information to Lt. Alexander Lovett on April 18, that the matter was investigated. The only reasonable explanation I can think of for Dana's behavior is that Dana had no idea he was looking for an injured man. This is just a nugget of information, but it goes to a bigger picture.

I think if people were looking at where Booth broke his leg in a vacuum, instead of from the perspective that Booth broke his leg when jumping from the Presidential Box, I wonder if they would draw a different conclusion given the information we have.

I don't know how much you know about Mike, so, pardon me if I bore you. In the 1980s, Mike started putting all the information in the National Archives assassination file into a database. For example: After making thousands upon thousands on entries, he was amazed with the results. When he searched on a specific item, such as a date, he would often find something new. For example, If he searched on a date Booth told someone he had been in Washington, he often found that John Surratt and other conspirators had been in Washington, too! He was amazed at what the computer sorted out for him. So, when Mike searched on every statement regarding Booth's broken leg, he found no witnesses who indicated Booth had broken his leg on the stage.

The thing I think is important about the broken leg theory is that for 150 years everyone had taken the statement that Booth had broken his leg on the stage at face value. No one had looked into the eyewitness statements, or at least had not paid enough attention to what they said to question where Booth broke his leg. That is what impresses me about my husband's research: it is meticulous.

Did you see Killing Lincoln last night? If so, did you notice they used Mike's broken leg theory (even though Hanks says that conventional history has Booth breaking his leg on the stage)? I was very excited that Mike's theory has been noticed by those other than in the assassination field. Mike had an opportunity to meet members of the production staff, including the director and producer, who told them they loved American Brutus and it influenced decisions they made about the movie.

Thanks, again, for writing.

All the best,

Mary

I thought it was very kind of Mary and Mike to take the time to respond. I do disagree with her about Wood "believing Dr. Mudd". His report sure sounds like the exact opposite to me. While we all may disagree (good naturedly), it is enjoyable to read differing points of view.

Heath

[Rsmyth]

Hello Heath, I am sorry I outted you...but it was a compliment. Hope you continue to post on some of the other topics!

[wsanto]

(02-21-2013 08:29 AM)Rhatkinson Wrote:  [quote='Rsmyth' pid='13653' dateline='1361451389']
...I thought it was very kind of Mary and Mike to take the time to respond. I do disagree with her about Wood "believing Dr. Mudd". His report sure sounds like the exact opposite to me. While we all may disagree (good naturedly), it is enjoyable to read differing points of view.

Wow. Great post. Thanks.

A few thoughts. Obviously Mike and Mary are not only wedded to each other but clearly very wedded to this theory. And for good reason...they know a lot more than me and, probably, a lot of us about these events.

And if it is true that Wood believed Mudd was innocent then that really throws a wrench into the theory that perhaps Wood learned any incriminating information from his dealings with Mudd and his staff.

Of course that doesn't discount that Wood's source was Swann or someone else unrelated to Mudd.

My biggest problem is that they don't consider Wood's telegrams indicating that he came up with the stage-leap theory as being relevent or important in the discussion. For them it is just a rather irrelavent trivial point that can not be explained. Perhaps they are right.

They also, in my mind, exaggerate the degree of false testimony in Booth's confession. In my mind, there is more truth than fiction in Booth's diary account.

They also take it as a matter of fact that Booth's horse fell. Whereas everyone knows that Booth leaped twelve feet and landed awkwardly at Ford's there is no witness to the horse fall. It is not a fact but a reasonable conclusion based on some rather scant (IMHO) and unreliable evidence.

One last point. In my opinion, they put too much stock in the idea that if Booth broke his leg at Ford's it would have been obvious to the audience that witnessed the event. I think a lot of this is base on the misconception that a "broken leg" would mostly cripple a person instantly and greatly hamper their escape. That is just not the case for a distal fibular shaft fracture. Booth's fracture would have just been as hard to discern as a twisted ankle for a witness that is in a state of perplexed shock as to what they are witnessing. I also doubt that the source for Wood's theory came from the witnessess at Ford's.

Just my thoughts but I do appreciate that Mrs. kauffman took the time to explain their point of view. It's just great.

Bill C.

[Laurie Verge]

Just a few things: First, we have 28 file drawers here at Surratt House of meticulous research done by James O. Hall from the 1950s until his death in 2006. Tim Good is an excellent historian who did considerable analysis of the eyewitness accounts also - and then got bad-mouthed for doing so.

Among those files are quite a few things on William Wood - including, as I posted before, those telegrams that Mr. Hall located decades ago. There are also statements made by or pertaining to Wood's sojourn in Southern Maryland during April of 1865. These are hard copies of specific statements contained in M-619, Reel 455, Frames 583-584, parts of reports from Wood to Stanton and also reports from a Bernard Adamson to Wood relative to stops made at a variety of homes and businesses in Southern Maryland.

I am also trying to find a complete article on Wood done by Curtis Carroll Davis in 1984, for the Maryland Historical Magazine. One interesting quote in that article comes from Wood, "...the Dr. tells a tale not to be believed..." In that same statement, there is reference to what someone posted about the crutch being made by a farmhand. Wood says that "Crutches were made for Booth by the Dr. and an Englishman in the Drs. employ." Mr. Davis identifies the Englishman as John Best, an indentured servant. In another statement, Wood clarifies that Mudd "...made with his own hands the arm pieces of the crutches." BTW: Wood's statements always refer to there being more than one crutch. Another missing artifact???

If I discover more things, I'll pass them along -- even if they are in opposition to my opinion.

[wsanto]

(02-21-2013 12:16 PM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  Just a few things: First, we have 28 file drawers here at Surratt House of meticulous research done by James O. Hall from the 1950s until his death in 2006. Tim Good is an excellent historian who did considerable analysis of the eyewitness accounts also - and then got bad-mouthed for doing so.

Among those files are quite a few things on William Wood - including, as I posted before, those telegrams that Mr. Hall located decades ago. There are also statements made by or pertaining to Wood's sojourn in Southern Maryland during April of 1865. These are hard copies of specific statements contained in M-619, Reel 455, Frames 583-584, parts of reports from Wood to Stanton and also reports from a Bernard Adamson to Wood relative to stops made at a variety of homes and businesses in Southern Maryland.

I am also trying to find a complete article on Wood done by Curtis Carroll Davis in 1984, for the Maryland Historical Magazine. One interesting quote in that article comes from Wood, "...the Dr. tells a tale not to be believed..." In that same statement, there is reference to what someone posted about the crutch being made by a farmhand. Wood says that "Crutches were made for Booth by the Dr. and an Englishman in the Drs. employ." Mr. Davis identifies the Englishman as John Best, an indentured servant. In another statement, Wood clarifies that Mudd "...made with his own hands the arm pieces of the crutches." BTW: Wood's statements always refer to there being more than one crutch. Another missing artifact???

If I discover more things, I'll pass them along -- even if they are in opposition to my opinion.

That's awesome Laurie, thanks.

[Rhatkinson]

In reading this excellent GATH article posted in the Thomas Harbin post:

http://www.samuelmudd.com/831884-george-...ation.html

...several interesting observations were made, one of which deals with this much debated leg break issue. If it is to be believed, Harbin actually heard directly from Booth on the issue. Of course, we also have Booth's diary, but to me this is a key piece of evidence to support the Ford's break as Booth had no reason to lie/embellish to Harbin (as I have argued, he also had no reason to lie to Jones.) here is what was reported:

Mr. Harbin asked Booth about his fractured leg. Booth said: "When I jumped out of that box I felt the bone give way in my leg, and a swooning sensation came on me, and I thought that I should fall to the floor. But," said he, "my courage took me through. If I had dropped there they would have captured me on the spot and that would have been the end of it. I rallied all my mental strength for the effort, and limped across the stage with a white face and went out of the door in the rear."

I do acknowledge there are problems with Harbin's hearsay of Booth which may cast doubt on this topic, namely the claim that Booth said he met up with Herold at F street and rode together from there. This is of course not in line with the other evidence of them crossing the bridge at differing times.

Harbin also says that Spangler knew of Booth's plan which I see no other evidence at all to support, and it makes little sense to trust such damning information to someone not in the group.

Heath