Breaking a leg

[Rhatkinson]

(02-19-2013 09:21 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  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."

Dave,

You make a good point about Wood (I apologize for calling him "Woods" above) using his evidence against Mudd at trial if it were so strong. However, I think Laurie is correct: the "evidence" may not have come from Mudd or his circle.

Above I wrote about my theory about Swann (or, more likely, someone related to Swann) being Wood's "evidence". This would make perfect sense as Swann could have overheard Booth telling Cox about the Ford's break, then relayed that to Wood when he also told him about Booth and Herold going inside Cox's home.

The pressure on a free black to recant this story against a powerful white man would be extraordinary, as it would show that not only did Cox invite in his home for 3 hours "strangers" who turned out to be the President's murders, but now Cox also KNEW who they were, which he would have to do if he Booth mentioned the Ford's break. This could have sent Cox to the gallows, so there would have been incredible pressure for Swann to go back to Wood and change his story.

This would explain Wood's seemingly frustrated tone when discussing the Ford's vs Horse theories. He knew that Cox was told by Booth about Ford's, but his witness confirming that recanted his story, which Wood knew was a lie done to protet the witness and his family from retribution but could not prove. Swann was in enough trouble for contradicting Cox, he would have been in SERIOUS danger if he led to Cox being hanged.