Breaking a leg

[Rhatkinson]

Dave,

I certainly do not mean to imply that I have THE answer to this puzzle (which I agree with Laurie is inconsequential in the greater scheme of the assassination, but is just one of those mysteries of history that are fun to discuss.)

I see your point about Wood not being called to testify about his evidence, and it is a valid one; however, my point is that Wood's telegram of April 23 must ruin Kauffman's theory. I say that because Kauffman states that the ONLY evidence of a Ford's break comes from Booth's diary, as no witnesses at Ford's testified about Booth appearing to be injured and the people Booth encountered on his flight all said that Booth told them he was injured in a horse fall. That simply is not true.

Answer this question if you can: what evidence COULD Wood have been referring to in his report? You will surely concede there was something he was given by way of evidence. What could it possibly be if Booth's diary alone was the reason the Ford's theory was accepted? SOMEONE told Wood that Booth broke his leg at Ford's. Who would possibly know that other than a person that Booth had spoken to directly or someone who overheard him (or Herold) saying it to someone else?

The list of people Booth spoke to would only be: Lloyd, Mudd, Swann, or Cox at that point (April 23rd). My guess is that perhaps Swann or someone around him overheard Booth or Herold say this, but feared being "outed" as a witness against Cox (who was claiming not to have known who Booth was at that point and therefore would definitely NOT want the government to hear that Booth told him he broke his leg at Ford's because that would obviously mean Cox would have to know Booth murdered Lincoln.)

Someone overheard Booth say this and reported it to the government. How else could Wood have hypothesized (much less been so certain) of the Ford's break? What other "evidence" is even possible?