Breaking a leg

[wsanto]

(11-29-2012 08:41 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  Actually Joe, the definition of hearsay is anything said that can't be cross-examined. Booth's writings in his diary definitely fit the definition of hearsay.

If his diary never existed do you really think anybody would have postulated that he broke his leg in the leap from the stage? What evidence would they have to make such a theory?

Regardless of whether Booth's diary is hearsay, the evidence of the horse fall is equally as questionable in my mind. Roger Norton provided Mr. Kauffman's article on his argument for the horse fall on another thread.

The only evidence Mr. Kauffman presents that is not based on what Booth told others is Herold's statement that he was present during the fall and helped Booth re-mount (presumably on the easier-riding horse) and the statement from Mudd's stableman that Booths' horse had a swollen left shoulder and a flesh wound on his left leg.

Of course, none of this evidence has been cross-examined.

Herold is a known liar and co-conspirator. He developed a cover story with Booth that they carried forth and stuck to, for the most part, during their escape. This fictional story may have included the horse fall as a rationale for Booth's injury.

If Herold's statement of the horse fall was made prior to the trial, it is subject to skepticism. If it was made after his conviction, it is stronger evidence but that still doesn't mean that it is true. It was certainly made prior to his knowledge of his sentence and he still might have been motivated to continue the story to maintain consistency with his previous narrative of the escape.

As far as the injury to the horse noticed by Mudd's stableman--Apparently Ferguson stated the the horse had in injured shoulder (from the shoulder bag) prior to the horse being used for the escape. There would also be other common reasons that the horse might have developed a flesh wound on his leg during the escape in the dark of night. The horse was obviously not terribly injured as it was used for many more miles of the escape.

Booth's diary is his confession and rationale (embellished to a certain degree for sympathy and posterity) of the assassination. I am not convinced that he felt that inventing his breaking his leg at Ford's would garner more sympathy than a horse fall during the escape. Why would he even include breaking his leg at Ford's unless there was some truth to it?