Breaking a leg

[Rhatkinson]

Bill, as usual, makes good points in his response to Kauffman's evidence. To me, the BEST evidence (since we will probably never know for certain) must be the recollection of Jones and the Wood telegrams, with the telegrams being the most compelling. Consider this:

1. As stated by several here, Jones had more direct interaction with Booth and Herold post-assassination than any other person. Also, Booth totally trusted Jones and was very grateful for the service Jones provided him (their send off in the rowboat is evidence of this.) As such, Booth would have had no reason to give Jones the "cover story" of the horse fall that he gave everyone else (Mudd, Lloyd, etc.) - he would have told him the truth because he knew that Jones could not betray him because to do so would implicate himself. Booth clearly told Jones that he broke his leg at Ford's. Jones even confirms knowledge of the horse fall cover (showing that he knew both versions were being debated (even back THEN! haha), yet Jones clearly states the horse fall was a cover. How would he know this except for Booth and Herold telling him that? What reason did Jones have to lie about that detail in his book 20 years after the fact? None.

2. In response, the Kauffman backers could say that Booth lied to Jones about Ford's as Booth was writing his diary and attempting to make sure he sounded more heroic for posterity. Perhaps, but the fatal flaw with that theory is the telegram that Wood sent on April 23, 1865 where Wood not only mentioned the Ford's break theory, but was adament that it WAS the truth. This was well before Booth's diary was ever found or before Jones was "duped" into believing Booth. The question is not only what Wood based his certain belief on (I would love to know), but rather that the Ford's break was common knowledge BEFORE Booth was killed and allegedly fabricated the story. How then can Kauffman, et al claim that the "only" evidence of the Ford's break was from Booth. We know that simply is not true.

Clearly, there were witnesses that believed Booth appeared to injure his leg at Ford's. Why those testimonies have been lost to history is a puzzle (perhaps it was during the initial excitement at Petersen House when Stanton realized he needed a transcriptionist to take down statements because Stanton's staff could not keep up with the volume of information flooding in.) Ask yourself "what else COULD Wood have based his strong opinion on except for a witness at Ford's?" No one else near Bryantown could possibly know that except for the few people that Booth and Herold had encountered, and they damn sure were not divulging such information to the government then.