Breaking a leg

[wsanto]

(02-17-2013 12:36 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Bill, the website is here. Mike Kauffman's arguments regarding the broken leg are here.

Thanks again, Roger.

I was hoping there was a more comprehensive explanation to his theory than what I've read before. I still do not find his arguments compelling. I'll take them point by point.

Eyewitnesses at Ford''s Theatre gave no indication of the accident, except to say that the assassin landed on the stage off-balance after leaping from the Presidential Box.

As we all know, the statements of the witnesses to the assassination at Ford's were all over the place. What did Booth say? When? Did he stumble or was he pulled off stage with a lasso? Like we've debated before, a broken fibula (being non-weight bearing) can be overcome like an ankle sprain with proper doses of adrenaline and alcohol.

During his escape, Booth told about a dozen people he had broken his leg when his horse stumbled and fell on him. He even said this to some people (such as John Lloyd) who knew about the assassination.

Perhaps he told the cover story to everyone he didn't fully know or trust. He also told a number of people he was an injured confederate soldier coming home from the war. Obviously we know this was a cover story. Why not the horse fall?

As far as LLoyd. I believe it is apparent that he was using the cover upon his initial arrival to Surratt's Tavern and up to his then last-minute admission that he killed the President. No need at this point to correct the cover story.

He must have told the a different story to Jone's during his week in the Pine thicket. Jone's book presents it as a matter of fact that he broke his leg at Ford's

David Herold backed up the stumbling horse story, adding that he himself was there and helped Booth mount up again right after the accident.

According to Herold? Completely unreliable. If he was in on the cover story it makes sense for him to carry that cover to his death.

When Booth mounted his horse in Baptist Alley (and had trouble with the skittish mare), his left leg bore all the weight and tortion of his body, yet he indicated no pain at the time and, and later, doctors did not report seeing signs of this trauma to the injury.

I don't even know what to say but that this starts with complete speculation. How does Mr Kauffman know wether Booth grimaced mounting the horse? He was obviously agitated by something as he struck a blow to Mr. Burroughs before he galloped away.

I'm also not sure what post-mortom evidence would be apparent at he fracture line that would be necessarily altered by mounting a horse.

Sgt. Cobb at the Navy Yard Bridge, who saw Booth 20 minutes after the shooting, noted that the assassin's voice was smooth and that he appeared at ease. Everyone else, from Surrattsville down (after the horse falling incident), said that Booth's voice was cracked in pain.

Booth was an actor. He may also have had a high pain threshold. He was also running high on adrenaline and alcohol. Twenty minutes is a short time and the full effect of swelling and inflammation would peak somewhat later. I am sure he was in a great deal more pain after riding hard to Surrattsville from the Navy Yard Bridge.

Dr. Mudd once said that Booth's pants were muddy when he arrived on the morning of April 15.

Wasn't it raining and were not the roads muddy? I assume both Herold and Booth had muddy pants.

Thomas David, a farmhand at Dr. Mudd's, told detectives that Booth's mare had a badly swollen left front shoulder and a fresh cut on its leg. Davis fed and cared for the horse during Booth's visit.

This is Kauffman's best evidence. But Mr. David, probably believing the cover story, may have seen more into the horse than he would have noted otherwise. The horse was ridden hard for many more miles along the escape before meeting his demise in the pine thicket. Jones came upon the bay mare upon initially entering the pine thicket. He describes this in his book. There is no mention that the horse appeared injured.

Booth's entire diary entry is filled with embellishments and is an unreliable account of the events.

I agree with this point. It is unreliable for being somewhat exaggerated but it is mostly based on the truth. Unless he was falsely validating a theory he read in the papers, it is awfully coincidental that the investigators in Bryantown came to the same conclusion that Booth later admits to.