Breaking a leg

[wsanto]

(02-04-2013 09:56 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  My problem with these telegrams is this, from where did the soldiers get their information? Booth was still on the run and no one had read his diary when these telegrams were written. Therefore, Wood and Waite could not have gotten their information from Booth's writings. What's more, the 2 out of the 3 telegrams mentioned the idea that Booth fell off of his horse, though they dismissed this. The only person at Bryantown at the time who could have told the soldiers such specific details of Booth's broken leg would have been Dr. Mudd. Yet Dr. Mudd never admitted to any knowledge of the assassination over his entire life, let alone in the early days of the investigation. His statements in Bryantown on the 21st recount the idea that Booth broke his leg from a fall off a horse. Had Mudd admitted that the man who showed up at his house broke his leg when he jumped from the box after shooting Lincoln, he would have been certainly executed for not turning in the man he knew to be Lincoln's assassin.

The way I see it, the language of William Wood's telegrams show that he was under the impression that Booth broke his leg when he jumped to the stage, even though he had no evidence for it. In fact, the lines, "it may be possible that she fell or threw off Booth and broke his leg. However, I believe as I have written this morning," demonstrates that he ignored evidence to the contrary to his opinion and continued to support his idea without merit. The subsequent telegram from Waite must have been influenced by Wood's assertions, even though they were unfounded.

I honestly don't know how to take these telegrams. While they don't technically weaken or support either of the theories, I believe that they demonstrate the danger of sticking to a belief even when faced with contrary evidence. The fact is, there was no reliable way for Wood and Waite to know Booth broke his leg in jumping from the stage. With the exception of Booth's diary, there is no reliable way for us to know either. A collection of evidence, a deal of it noticeably circumstantial mind you, does support the idea of Booth falling from his horse. The amount of evidence seems to be in favor of Kauffman's theory, but it still seems to come down to whether or not we believe Booth's word. Due to this, I’m sure the debate will always exist.

Dave,

I see these telegrams as better evidence of Booth breaking his leg at Ford's.

These telegrams are a reminder that these investigators had more evidence in 1865 than we have today. There must have been some rather convincing evidence of the break at Ford's that has been lost to history. How else would they have created the theory that Booth broke his leg at Ford's? We know, at this point, they didn't have Booth's diary. If the theory was based on supposition, it would be quite a coincidence that Booth made the same claim.

The problem is, whatever that evidence was, we don't have that evidence today. But whatever that evidence was, when these contemporary investigators weighed it against the evidence that Booth fell from his horse, it was convincing enough for them to conclude that Booth broke his leg at Ford's.