Breaking a leg

[wsanto]

(11-29-2012 08:30 AM)LincolnMan Wrote:  I wonder how many of the folks he told the "horse story" to were also informed by him that he had shot Lincoln. If Booth was wanting to conceal his deed, he wouldn't have told them that he broke the bone leaping unto the stage after shooting the president.

Booth and Herold had developed a narrative including aliases and a rather detailed explanation for the plight (confederate soldiers returning home). They would have, obviously, needed to offer an explanation for the broken leg. In my opinion, Mudd. probably knowing the truth, further embellished their narrative to minimize his own complicity in abetting the fugitives.

If Herold's horse was "lame" from the fall. It did pretty well getting to Mudd's house and from there to Bryantown and back and then to Cox's house and then to the pine thicket over the next 24 hours? How lame was that horse?

---

(11-29-2012 09:11 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(11-28-2012 09:49 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:  There's more variables to it than that, Jerry and I wish it were that simple. Many scenarios could apply here, or even several; there's no cut and dried answer.

IMO There is far more evidence to support the horse fall than the stage leap. Booth's claim is hearsay supported by no witnesses nor physical

Booth's claim is not hearsay. It was written by him in his diary. Apparently he was alone when his horse fell. That makes everyone else's statements hearsay based on what he told them. He was lying to everyone he encountered as well. His statements to them have to be considered at least as fabricated/embellished as his diary entries.

Was his diary account exaggerated? Absolutely. Does this mean that he created the narrative that he injured himself jumping to the stage? Why? How does his breaking his leg leaping to the stage improve his story for prosterity?