Breaking a leg

[Rhatkinson]

Woods' report = disproval of Kauffman's theory. It's really that simple (to me at least.)

If you support Kauffman, ask yourself this: what was the evidence that Woods had (and so fervently believed) on 4/23/1865?

If it is a lost witness as Laurie surmises, then Kauffman is wrong when he says the "only" evidence is Booth, via his diary (Booth damn sure didn't talk to Wood.)

If it is a witness at Ford's who says Booth stumbled and could have been injured, then it ruins Kauffman's entire premise that "not one witness" (initially) claimed Booth was injured at Ford's. You can't have it both ways - witnesses can't simultaneously claim that Booth appeared uninjured yet also claim that the witnesses who commented on his stumble were so convinced as to believe the "stumble" caused his leg to break. It is one or the other.

When you pair this fatal flaw along with the testimony of Jones (who had first hand knowledge and no reason to lie), Kauffman's theory just doesn't pass muster.

Thoughts? (Kauffman backers: please answer the "what was Woods' evidence" question.)

Heath

Ps, Dave, I just realized you were the owner of bothiebarn.com. Congrats on a fantastic site. I love to read it.