Breaking a leg

[Dave Taylor]

While I doubt some of you will believe me, I am still undecided with how Booth broke his leg. Really I'm looking for a reliable piece of evidence to really sway me one way or the other. Here's how I look at the evidence we've discussed so far:

Mudd's statement - Unreliable as he is a co-conspirator. Cannot put any true faith in what he said.

Davy's statement - Same as above. Both men lied through their teeth to attempt to protect themselves.

Booth's diary - Full of hyperbole and exaggeration. This was Booth's last message to the world and he would say anything to make himself look heroic. However, I do give his words a bit more weight (still not much, mind you) than Mudd and Davy since these came straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak, and he wasn't trying to save his butt like the other two.

Lloyd - False. As I stated here, no where in the statements or testimony that actually came from Lloyd does he mention the idea that Booth told him his horse fell on him. Rather this comes from a summation of statements by Col. Foster. At the very least this is completely unreliable.

Thomas Davis, Mudd's farmhand - gives evidence of damage to Booth's horse, "lame in her front leg" and "piece of skin off on the inside of her left foreleg about as big as a silver dollar". Davis is unbiased and reliable to me. Though not proof of a fall, he does give legitimate evidence of damage to Booth's horse from something.

Wood's AM and PM reports - Problematic for both theories. While I understand Dr. Santos' and Laurie's idea that Wood might have dismissed Mudd's and Davis' statements due to some other source of information making him believe Mudd was lying, it is too farfetched to me. As I stated before, if Wood had concrete evidence to disprove Mudd's story, he would have become the prime witness in incriminating Dr. Mudd. Remember Mudd played it off that he did not know who Booth and Herold were or what they had done. If a source near Bryantown told Wood that Booth broke his leg in jumping to the box at Ford's, then Mudd would be up a creek without a paddle. Invesitgators through Wood would then have conclusive proof that Mudd not only knew who Booth and Herold were (a point they argued profusely at the trial) and that he knew Booth shot Lincoln when he was tending to him, proving his complicity in aiding the assassin's escape (something they desperately wanted to prove at the trial). To me, the language of Wood's reports tell a completely different story. In my eyes, once Wood heard that Booth had a broken leg, he created the idea that it happened in the jump to the stage. This, by itself is not a bad thing. That's putting two know facts together and that's what he was supposed to do as an investigator. But Wood also didn't believe Dr. Mudd, "The Dr. tells a tale not to be believed about their departure from his house..." Again, a very astute observation by Wood who knows better than to trust the words of this suspicious doctor. Then we go to the PM report. We know Wood already has the idea in his head that Booth broke his leg in jumping from the stage, and that he is slightly biased against Dr. Mudd. To me, that completely explains this: "The assassins changed horses. Herold was riding the bay mare obtained from Pumphrey's Stable, and it may be possible that she fell or threw off Booth and broke his leg. However, I believe as I have written this morning."

Jones - Thirty years later. Not involved with Booth's leg and even admits his writing over Booth's break in the theatre is just what, "has become history, and I need not dwell over it". Jones adds nothing to the discussion, in my eyes.

So far, I am still lacking a solid, reliable piece of evidence to turn me conclusively one way or another. No one has been able to prove to me either story which makes both equally plausible. In my eyes, neither theory is completely dismissed by the evidence. Until more evidence of weight is presented, neither has the advantage to me.