Booth's Horse Fell....

[wpbinzel]

(12-23-2016 09:31 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  I DISAGREE. THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE FAVORS THE CONCLUSION THAT THE FRACTURE OCCURRED WHEN HE FELL TO THE STAGE.

Thanks, John, for adding your perspective. I have the utmost respect and appreciation for your research and contributions in this field. I also recognize that reasonable people may draw different conclusions from a set of information. That is probably the thing I enjoy most about the study of history.

The purpose of my post was simply to compile a series of observations that, hopefully, provided an interesting perspective of the "falling horse" theory. If I have learned anything in the course of my research -- and based on your writings, I am virtually certain that you would agree -- is that just because something has become "accepted history," it doesn't mean it actually happened that way (e.g., see Lincoln in the Telegraph Office).

While I question some of your comments, I am firmly in the camp of "Nobody Alive Today Knows for Sure," so readers should draw their own conclusions. To me, the central point is either you accept the veracity of the claims in Booth's "diary" or you don't. Those claims are the origin and source of the "broke on stage" theory. Given the context in which they were written, I do not find Booth to be credible. However, for most (myself included), if the standard of proof for either theory is "beyond a reasonable doubt," then neither could prevail. If, however, as you suggest, a more practical standard is that of a preponderance of the evidence, then it will leave people with different conclusions. So be it.