Those Booth Horses Again -

[JMadonna]

Again Bill, it's Booth's claim against the weight of the evidence.

Dr. George Mudd is a second hand opinion as is Thomas Jones and newspaper reports. If you believe Booth's claim that's fine. But trying to cast doubt on everyone else is going to be an exhausting exercise.

[L Verge]

Just a note that Anna never mentioned Booth being a visitor at the H Street home on the night of the assassination. In her statement of April 28, 1865, as well as her trial testimony, Anna mentions only the visit from Mr. Kirby, a neighbor (and believed to be Mrs. Holohan's brother).

[RJNorton]

(04-17-2014 10:34 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Just a note that Anna never mentioned Booth being a visitor at the H Street home on the night of the assassination. In her statement of April 28, 1865, as well as her trial testimony, Anna mentions only the visit from Mr. Kirby, a neighbor (and believed to be Mrs. Holohan's brother).

Laurie, I was relying on Weichmann's word when I said that.

Weichmann writes that, "Mrs. Holohan corroborated the testimony of the writer as to the fact of some person coming at that time, but if Mrs. Surratt said to her it was Mr. Kirby, then Mrs. Surratt stated what I believe to be a deliberate falsehood. The words of Mrs. Surratt's daughter uttered on the morning of the 15th prove beyond question that it was Booth."

Later Weichmann writes that when the detectives left on the morning of the 15th Anna Surratt cried out, "Oh, Ma! Mr. Weichmann is right; just think of that man (John W. Booth) having been here an hour before the assassination. I am afraid it will bring suspicion upon us."

[Wild Bill]

I essentially agree with everything that Jerry Madonna has said, particularly post 85 above. I especially like his reference to Magical Saddlebag Theorists along the way.

I am not sure but that Bill Santo has contradicted the material he printed in post 58 above about horse injuries in post 87 above. They are all there and now he denies that?

I cannot find anyplace where Thos Jones said that Mudd confessed he lied to him about Booth falling with his horse. But Mudd lied like a rug according to Ed Steers, His Name Is Still Mudd.

As a matter of fact everyone lied about everything and, to assert what I once said, we really will never know the exact truth. History is that way and that's why we study historiography--i.e., the historians' interpretations, or the historians' lies about history's lies, if you prefer.

Finally, we have a lengthy thread somewhere on his forum with 170+ posts in which we exhausted my assertion that Booth stopped at Mary Surratt's townhouse, both pro and con. So I sympathize with Laurie and Betty rolling their eyes over all this.

But in my chapter notes I refer to make Kauffman making the point that no one knows where Booth went between Ford's and the Navy Yard Bridge (Blue and Gray, [vol. 7, June 1990], 12; and Susan Mahoney Jackson was faking being asleep when the 3 men came in, whom I theorize were Mitchell Smooth, Booth and Herold, in the John H. Surratt trial testimony in 1867.

If you don't like this, that is ok by me. But that is my story and I am sticking with it. BTW I spent 30 years shoeing horses and mules and farriers are noted purveyors of BS as they work. Goes with the profession.

[wsanto]

(04-17-2014 11:02 AM)Wild Bill Wrote:  I am not sure but that Bill Santo has contradicted the material he printed in post 58 above about horse injuries in post 87 above. They are all there and now he denies that?

I cannot find anyplace where Thos Jones said that Mudd confessed he lied to him about Booth falling with his horse. But Mudd lied like a rug according to Ed Steers, His Name Is Still Mudd.

Bill,

This is the quote of Thomas Davis I believed Mr. Kauffman used as his primary source evidence of Booth's horse being injured to support his theory of the horse-fall. You can find it in "The Evidence"

Q. What kind of horses were they?

A. One was a roan horse, medium size; a mark about the saddle where he had been hurt; his shoulder was swelled right smart; mark was behind the saddle, an old sore; the swelling of the shoulder was fresh; swelled right smart; I cannot remember whether he had white stockings; or whether he had any mark upon his forehead; he was a light roan. The saddle was light, government blanket with a row of holes down it. The other was a small bay mare. The colored man told me he had a white star on his forehead. I did not notice; she was lame in her left front leg she was very lame before taken out of the stable and taken to water about 10 or 11 o'clock


The problem is Mr. Kauffman apparently confused the horses. It was Herold's horse (the roan) that had a freshly swollen shoulder and an old injury behind its saddle. Davis does go on to say Booth's mare was very lame in the left leg later that morning but she was also the horse that was taken out for Herold to ride that afternoon when he and Mudd rode to Bryantown. (not so lame I guess).

In another statement Davis describes Booth's mare as being in "excellent trim" with a small piece of skin missing from the inside of its left foreleg (not evidence of a horse fall IMO)

That is the reason I claim that the evidence of Booth's mare being injured in a horse fall has been erroneously represented by Mr. Kauffman and erroneously argued since. It doesn't mean there wasn't a horse fall but it does mean, IMO, that there is no real evidence the mare was injured from a fall (which is where this all began on this thread)

I never said Thomas Jones stated that Mudd admitted the horse fall was a lie but that in his (Jones') book he gives his opinion the horse-fall story was a lie concocted by Mudd for cover.

Respectively,

Bill C

[Wild Bill]

Tell you what. I'll give you the Thomas Jones stuff so we can get to the real crux of the argument here.


Now, you BELIEVE Mike Kauffman used your designated evidence to ERRONEOUSLY confuse the horses. Oh, this is rich. I'm glad that you can correct Kauffman's mistake on this. I'll bet he is, too!

The mare WAS in excellent trim--minus the lame left leg which was her problem. You quote exactly that in your repeat of post 58, above. Herold took her out the next day with Mudd toward Bryantown to loosen up her muscles and tendons--a common horse remedy. I think people do the same, but you are the doctor, I'm nothing more than an ignorant Coke Cola cowboy with 30 years of doubtful horse and mule experience. That mare fell in the road.

IMO (ain't it neat I can use that fancy internet stuff, too?), as I said before, I would take Kauffman's research and beliefs about the assassination more than yours or mine. I advise other to do the same.

You know, in Arizona, when I was a boy, it was the style to send a post card to one's friends back East with a small plastic bag of the finest HS and BS called Corral # 5. Your friends were to rub it behind their ears and put the rest in a hip pocket so they would not be mistaken for dudes when they came West.

Here's what you and I are going to do. You go with your beliefs and I will stay with mine, and let's give everyone else a break from this Corral # 5.

Pace (that's Latin, Doc, or so I have been told. And I always though it was a horse gait).

[wsanto]

Sorry Bill if I offended you.

Mr. Kauffman's website (which may actually be his wife's website) lists as a bullet in his evidence of a horse fall that Thomas Davis told investigators the horse had a swollen shoulder.

It is clear that Mr. Davis was referring to Herold's roan and not Booth's mare
with regard to the swollen shoulder. It is an error on his (or his wife's) website.

I'm a fan of Mr. Kauffman's work and appreciate being able to participate and learn on this board with so many highly respected experts in this field. I like to participate in the debate even though I am by no means qualified to do so. Mr. Norton and others have always made me and other newbies feel welcome here and I look forward to continue my most excellent free education on his board in the future.

Bill C

[Rick Smith]

Bill C,

You mention the following in a previous post:

"I never said Thomas Jones stated that Mudd admitted the horse fall was a lie but that in his (Jones') book he gives his opinion the horse-fall story was a lie concocted by Mudd for cover."

I cannot find anywhere in Jones' book where he gives his opinion that the horse fall story was a lie concocted by Dr. Mudd. The following is all that I can find regarding the horse fall:

"Booth knew the doctor, having met him and had visited at his house when in the country about eighteen months before the assassination. The statement he made to the doctor was that his horse had fallen and hurt him. Both he and Herold entered the house and the doctor, assisted by his kind-hearted wife, who had arisen for the purpose, proceeded to examine and dress the fracture. The fugitives remained there until the following evening. How much they told Dr. Mudd beyond the fact that they wished to cross the river to Virginia is not known."

Although there is no question in my mind that Jones wrote his book in such a way as to protect others, there is nothing here to indicate that Jones is giving his opinion that Mudd concocted a story, only a statement recorded by Jones.

Possibly I am missing something.[/i]

[L Verge]

wsanto - Welcome to my world. Isn't it amazing that one little unprovable tidbit of history (that really means very little in the big picture) can cause such a furor? Try contending with it for over a decade.

[JMadonna]

(04-16-2014 07:22 PM)L Verge Wrote:  No further comment, as I said, because neither of us will back down. FYI: I do not believe the saddlebag theories either.

I don't blame you, but if you hold that Booth broke his leg on the stage there doesn't appear to be another theory as to how Booth lost his hat at the theater but had one at the gate that doesn't involve dismounting. I'm afraid you can't have one without the other. C'est la vie!

Dr. Bill, sometimes the old cowboy sits on his spurs when he writes. Its one of the reasons we call him Wild Bill.

[L Verge]

Remind me again how we know that Booth lost his hat at Ford's.

[Rick Smith]

Alright, you all, I know that I am taking a risk here without having any sources to cite, so be charitable, but I read "somewhere" that Booth's hat was one of the items found afterwards in the theatre, along with the Philadelphia derringer and the broken spur.

[L Verge]

(04-18-2014 02:15 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Remind me again how we know that Booth lost his hat at Ford's.

Found it on page 18 of American Brutus: "...in a manner of speaking, the crime scene came to them [the police]. Witnesses flocked to their office, many with evidence in hand.....another turned in the assassin's hat. Made of dark grey felt, it was a fashionable "slouch" hat, with a pleated band, low crown, and turned-up brim. E.D. Wray of the Surgeon General's office picked it up only seconds [?seconds??] after the shooting, and others identified it as the one that fell from Booth's head when he hit the stage."

Interesting in a way because I always thought that slouch hats were popular because they tended to stay securely on the head. It also means that all the engravings of Booth in the box without a hat are wrong.

[Rick Smith]

(04-18-2014 02:45 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 02:15 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Remind me again how we know that Booth lost his hat at Ford's.

Found it on page 18 of American Brutus: "...in a manner of speaking, the crime scene came to them [the police]. Witnesses flocked to their office, many with evidence in hand.....another turned in the assassin's hat. Made of dark grey felt, it was a fashionable "slouch" hat, with a pleated band, low crown, and turned-up brim. E.D. Wray of the Surgeon General's office picked it up only seconds [?seconds??] after the shooting, and others identified it as the one that fell from Booth's head when he hit the stage."

Interesting in a way because I always thought that slouch hats were popular because they tended to stay securely on the head. It also means that all the engravings of Booth in the box without a hat are wrong.

The slouch hat became popular in America in 1852 as a result of the visit of Lajos Kossuth, the Hungarian freedom fighter, who wore that style of hat while touring the U.S.

The slouch hat was also known as a Kossuth Hat.

What is interesting is the description of the hat worn by Booth: ". . .dark grey felt, it was a fashionable "slouch" hat, with a pleated band, low crown, and turned-up brim."

The pleated band is very unique.

I need to get one of those.

[JMadonna]

Kossuth, was a good friend of George N. Sanders - Booth's spy handler.