Breaking a leg

[wsanto]

I enjoyed reading "American Brutus" and I consider Mr. Kauffman as a preemminent scholar on this subject. And I am thankful for his research that has greatly expanded what we know of the conspiracy and the assassination. But I do not subscribe to a lot of the conclusions he makes throughout his book. Especially with his opinions on the guilt of Mudd and Mary Surratt and, less importantly, with his opinion of the broken leg.

As far as Thomas Jones is concerned. He was there. He talked to Booth every day for a week after the assassination. It was very apparent that Booth had a broken leg. I am speculating that there were conversations and I am guessing that one of the topics was Booth's broken leg. If it happened in a horse fall, and that wasn't just a cover story, Booth would have told that to Jones. And Jones would not have forgot that even thrity years later. Booth didn't tell that to Jones. Apparently he related to Jones the story he told Mudd (the cover) and the story he wrote in his diary. One was true and one was a lie. Jones is very clear in his book as to which was which.

Now should I subscribe to Kauffman's conclusions based on all of his wonderful research done 100+ years after the fact or to Jone's conclusions based on his direct contact with Booth that he recollects thirty years after the fact?