Breaking a leg

[BettyO]

Laurie says: "Next question: Which horse would Booth have been riding when his injury supposedly occurred? We know that he was riding the spirited bay mare when he left Ford's, however, he's on the other horse when he arrives at Surrattsville, and that is the horse that was tended to at Mudd's and supposedly injured. Therefore, one must assume that Booth had already changed horses before "the fall" came in order for the large horse to be injured. That would have made the wound to the horse fairly fresh and more noticeable to Lloyd, I would think."


Booth would more or less have been riding the bay mare, I would think. She was jittery, flighty and high strung. Herold's roan, Charley, was a "lady's horse" and therefore much quieter, which was probably why they traded horses somewhere along the road before reaching Surratt House. A roan horse can look gray at night.

Davey's roan, Charley had an "injured" shoulder, according to Fletcher who stated that the wound was from a sidesaddle rubbing his shoulder - NOT from an obvious fall..... see Fletcher's testimony, "The Evidence"

[RJNorton]

(11-28-2012 11:29 AM)John E. Wrote:  I took a screenshot of the reference for you Roger.

John, many thanks. I think you know from previous discussions that my personal belief is the traditional account, but the manner in which you presented your arguments is terrific. Kudos.

[Laurie Verge]

Thank you, Betty, for pointing that out. If I remember correctly, that argument was made years ago to the revisionist and was ignored.

[JMadonna]

Back in another life as a teacher a young student asked me why his answer to an algebra problem was wrong. The proof was a straightforward if A=b & b=c then A=c. As I went through the problem and he agreed with every step until the last step which concluded that a=c. His reasoning was that he knew c=7 and he knew A didn't ! Stunned, I went through the proof in every way I could think of all ending with the same conclusion. He could not accept that A=C because he was sure C = 7. Finally, I asked the department head for help. He went through it just like I did and the same ending occurred. Since I had a reputation as somewhat of a joker, he looked at me as if I was putting the student up to his conclusion but he soon realized that the student was serious and never got the right answer.

Thought you'd find that story interesting.

Jerry

[John E.]

(11-28-2012 03:05 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(11-28-2012 11:29 AM)John E. Wrote:  I took a screenshot of the reference for you Roger.

John, many thanks. I think you know from previous discussions that my personal belief is the traditional account, but the manner in which you presented your arguments is terrific. Kudos.

Thanks Roger and to everyone else for the compliments on me stating my case. Much of what I presented was just an echo of Mike Kauffman's research with a little further digging in to certain aspects. While we may not all agree, its nice to hear people's opinions or ideas.

If not for Dave Taylor questioning a prime source for Herold accompanying Powell to the Seward residence, I wouldn't have looked in to that area further.

Just as an update - the question of why Booth said Rathbone was a Colonel and not a major spawned an entirely new thread about what Lincoln's guest was wearing that night. If I recall correctly, Rathbone was brevetted to a Col.'s rank and may have been allowed to wear some sort of temporary insignia stating as much. We just don't know. In other words, perhaps Booth was not exaggerating when he said "Colonel" and not Major.

[Laurie Verge]

Object lesson point taken. That student and I would get along fine because we both work with what the evidence tells us.

[Dave Taylor]

I think John did a wonderful job in laying out the case for Booth having broken his leg from a horse fall, with the except of one piece of evidence. It is the same one Laurie has a problem with, and I don't blame her. It has to do with good old John Lloyd. I am not convinced that Lloyd ever said that he was told Booth's horse fell on him. Let me show you why.

(11-28-2012 11:29 AM)John E. Wrote:  

Here is the excerpt from the evidence that John posted. At first glance it seems to support the point of a horse fall: "The other rider complained that he had broken his leg from his horse falling". That statment seems pretty strong on the face of it. However, can this be corroborated? This account falls under the heading of John Lloyd in The Evidence, and even cites the Pittman and Poore transcripts as sources to the text. As Laurie pointed out though, at the trial Lloyd never mentions anything about being told the horse fell on Booth. The trial does agree with much of what is in this statement, but not that point.

While I don't have The Evidence book in front of me, previously I have gone through the other John Lloyd statments. He made three lengthy statements, I believe. I read each one of them carefully looking for any corroborating mention of the "horse fall" story. In all of those other lenghty statements he never mentions it. Not even once. That makes this one statement that John posted the sole source of Lloyd mentioning the horse falling. If that was it, I would say that it is still legitmate evidence but perhaps not as reliable.

However, the big problem with this Lloyd statement, is that it does not come from Lloyd. While placed under the John Lloyud header, he was not the author. If you look at the original document as cited (4:45), you will find that it was written by Colonel John Foster. This is not a verbatim transcript of his remarks like his other statements, and it does not bear his approving signature at the end to verify the contents. Rather this "statement" is a summary of evidence compiled by Col. Foster.

Here is the link to the beginning of the long memorandum written by Foster in which he summarizes the evidence from 24 different people including Lloyd. I'm assuming that Foster made his summaries by reading over the official statments of the witnesses and then boiling them down, but we can't be sure. Even if this was the case, we know from Lloyd's other statements that he never mentioned the horse falling anywhere else. Out of the 24, Lloyd's was the 22nd summary Foster wrote. In addition Foster had already written 37 pages before getting to him.

Here's my theory, Foster was tired and made a mistake. You're probably thinking, "Well that's a pretty unique thing to 'mistakenly' add to a summary of evidence." If you look at whose statment came right after Lloyd's, I think his error is perfectly logical. Right after Foster's summary of John Lloyd's testimony, he summarized the testimony of good ol' Dr. Samuel A. Mudd. The summaries even share part of the same page. Noticeably absent from Dr. Mudd's summary is any mention of the horse falling story. Dr. Mudd's rather plainly states that "Booth's leg had been broken" while we know, as John posted, that Mudd stated to officals that, "one of their horses had fallen, by which one of the men had broken his leg”.

In my eyes it seems quite logical, that Foster mistakenly added a piece of Dr. Mudd's statement to Lloyd's account. However, even if this is not the case, the undeniable point is that what Col. Foster wrote in his summary of Lloyd's statements is not corroborated in Lloyd's accounts. As such it can not be trusted or used. If it came straight from Lloyd in one of his lengthy statements then it would have credibility. But since it does not come straight from Lloyd and cannot be corroborated by either his testimony at the trial or his official statements, it is little more than heresay. Find me any other source in which Lloyd attests to the "horse falling" idea and I'll concede. Until then, I put no trust in Foster's version and thus cannot include Lloyd as a proponent of Booth breaking his leg as a result of a horse fall.

[John E.]

Hi Dave,

Your point is well taken and it was obviously well thought out. Going through evidence, statements and newspaper articles can be frustrating. Often times it comes down to researchers making a judgement call on the evidence as presented.

While what you wrote about Foster is certainly possible and that he may have mistakenly piggybacked Dr. Mudd's statements in to Lloyd's, I've chosen to believe Foster relayed his findings accurately. If for no other reason than its difficult enough to make sense of KNOWN discrepancies than to assign hypothetical ones - no matter how possible.

You are pretty much saying you don't trust Foster's account of what Lloyd says because Lloyd didn't say it in his own statements. Fair enough.

[L Verge]

Thank you, Dave, for assisting me. As I said previously, I was introduced to the horse fall theory several years before it was published - as were most of the acknowledged experts in the field. The theory met with stiff, negative responses then because of little discrepancies that could not be explained away. Personally, I think it won't die a noble death because it is one, new blip in the usual telling of the story and has taken on a life of its own as a result.

[J. Beckert]

Who made the statement that Booth's clothes were disheveled and muddy? Mrs. Mudd? That lends a little more credence to the horse fall, but I'm starting to believe both incidents could have occurred. How else could his clothes have been muddied if he was riding the horse without falling off on a 30 mile trip?

[Dave Taylor]

(11-28-2012 07:48 PM)John E. Wrote:  Hi Dave,

Your point is well taken and it was obviously well thought out. Going through evidence, statements and newspaper articles can be frustrating. Often times it comes down to researchers making a judgement call on the evidence as presented.

While what you wrote about Foster is certainly possible and that he may have mistakenly piggybacked Dr. Mudd's statements in to Lloyd's, I've chosen to believe Foster relayed his findings accurately. If for no other reason than its difficult enough to make sense of KNOWN discrepancies than to assign hypothetical ones - no matter how possible.

You are pretty much saying you don't trust Foster's account of what Lloyd says because Lloyd didn't say it in his own statements. Fair enough.

John,

I'm not completely dismissing the horse falling hypothesis, merely Lloyd as evidence of it.

In the spirit of debate, I have to ask you about your trust that, "Foster relayed his findings accurately." Forgot my possible explanation regarding Mudd's statement and all that. The important thing is from where did Foster get this finding of the horse falling? As far as I can tell, Foster was never one of the people who interviewed Lloyd when he gave his statements. If Foster conversed with him and wrote this after, then that would be something in your favor. Since he did not talk with Lloyd in person and the only sources left to him were the official statements, how can you trust this point to be true?

My idea about the Mudd/Lloyd mix up is little more than a theory and not key to my argument. Rather it is just a possible explanation for what occurred. Otherwise you sum up my argument well with, "You are pretty much saying you don't trust Foster's account of what Lloyd says because Lloyd didn't say it in his own statements." Until I am given some sort of documentary evidence (a meeting between Foster and Lloyd / another statement from Lloyd attesting to the horse falling idea) Foster's version has no credibility. We need to look at this piece of "evidence" with the same skepticism we would give if Foster claimed Lloyd said Booth was dressed like a clown that night.

Again this is not to dimiss the entire horse falling theory and not an attack on you John. You're a skilled researcher who has uncovered wonderful gems. In fact, if you and Barry don't get your book out soon I'm liable to come down to San Antionio and steal a copy!

[John E.]

(11-28-2012 08:03 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Thank you, Dave, for assisting me. As I said previously, I was introduced to the horse fall theory several years before it was published - as were most of the acknowledged experts in the field. The theory met with stiff, negative responses then because of little discrepancies that could not be explained away. Personally, I think it won't die a noble death because it is one, new blip in the usual telling of the story and has taken on a life of its own as a result.

Ironically, had JWB not written that he broke his leg "in jumping" - which can also be interpreted different ways - we wouldn't be having this discussion. If I'm not mistaken, this is the only reference we have that he broke his leg in any other way than a horse fall.

Messing with people's interpretation of history is a tricky thing.

Some people are more comfortable believing Dr. Mudd was the good old country doctor just doing his duty, that Mary Surratt was the innocent, pious woman condemned for her son's sins..Others like to believe Old Glory tripped up Booth's jump from the balcony and aided in breaking his leg.

I like to question things and dig. It's fun. What else are we going to do until a significant find is made ?

---

(11-28-2012 08:39 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  

(11-28-2012 07:48 PM)John E. Wrote:  Hi Dave,

Your point is well taken and it was obviously well thought out. Going through evidence, statements and newspaper articles can be frustrating. Often times it comes down to researchers making a judgement call on the evidence as presented.

While what you wrote about Foster is certainly possible and that he may have mistakenly piggybacked Dr. Mudd's statements in to Lloyd's, I've chosen to believe Foster relayed his findings accurately. If for no other reason than its difficult enough to make sense of KNOWN discrepancies than to assign hypothetical ones - no matter how possible.

You are pretty much saying you don't trust Foster's account of what Lloyd says because Lloyd didn't say it in his own statements. Fair enough.

John,

I'm not completely dismissing the horse falling hypothesis, merely Lloyd as evidence of it.

In the spirit of debate, I have to ask you about your trust that, "Foster relayed his findings accurately." Forgot my possible explanation regarding Mudd's statement and all that. The important thing is from where did Foster get this finding of the horse falling? As far as I can tell, Foster was never one of the people who interviewed Lloyd when he gave his statements. If Foster conversed with him and wrote this after, then that would be something in your favor. Since he did not talk with Lloyd in person and the only sources left to him were the official statements, how can you trust this point to be true?

My idea about the Mudd/Lloyd mix up is little more than a theory and not key to my argument. Rather it is just a possible explanation for what occurred. Otherwise you sum up my argument well with, "You are pretty much saying you don't trust Foster's account of what Lloyd says because Lloyd didn't say it in his own statements." Until I am given some sort of documentary evidence (a meeting between Foster and Lloyd / another statement from Lloyd attesting to the horse falling idea) Foster's version has no credibility. We need to look at this piece of "evidence" with the same skepticism we would give if Foster claimed Lloyd said Booth was dressed like a clown that night.

Again this is not to dimiss the entire horse falling theory and not an attack on you John. You're a skilled researcher who has uncovered wonderful gems. In fact, if you and Barry don't get your book out soon I'm liable to come down to San Antionio and steal a copy!

Hey Dave,

No offense or implied attack taken. If we all agreed on things, this subject would be boring.

I'm asking this honestly, because I am not 100% certain - Was Foster responsible for gathering all pertinent findings and delivering them to Burnett ? Could one of the soldiers who did speak with Lloyd have just told Foster what he heard and he incorporated it in to the account?

Ultimately, the Foster issue really doesn't change anything but it addresses my question as to why Booth would lie about how he broke his leg and then told the truth about killing Lincoln.

[L Verge]

Joe - I think the condition of the roads might account for mud splattering up onto Booth as he rode. I believe there had been rain the day before and at least misting earlier on the day of the assassination that would cause that. I'm also not ruling out the horse falling (I just think Booth's leg was already broken at that point) and Booth getting dirty that way.

Everyone please make note of what Betty said about Fletcher reporting that Charley had an injured front shoulder from a previous bout with a side saddle. To me, that's an important piece of evidence.

Exactly when do the cows come home, because that's how long we are going to be debating this?!

[J. Beckert]

I see your point about the muddy roads, Laurie, but I've always thought if it was particularly noted by someone, he'd have been a bit more muddied than he would have been from just a ride on a wet night.

The cows are never coming home again, dear. Ever. Who wants to start the whole Booth shot himself thing again?!!

[JMadonna]

Until someone learns that if A=B & B=C then A=C and not some unsubstantiated claim by JWB.