Those Booth Horses Again -

[BettyO]

"

Quote:Tearing at the flesh" does not have to refer to the outer flesh of the leg either. My arthritis makes walking feel like my inner flesh is being torn, so I can empathize with Mr. Booth's thoughts on pain."

I'll reiterate about Victorian riding styles, which were vastly different from today's interaction with horseback riding. The closest thing nowadays is riding the Western Seat as opposed to the modern English Seat which was used in a modified way in the 19th Century.

In the 19th Century, one leaned back while riding at a gallop with the leg rather straight in the stirrup and all the weight and balance on the ball of the foot as well as the lower legs and thighs. With weight bearing on that broken lower bone, Booth would have been in a lot of pain. Today's English Seat uses primarily the thigh and lower leg for balance with not as much emphasis placed on the ball of the foot. The leg is bent while in the saddle so there is not so much pressure on the lower foot and ankle as there would have been in the Victorian era.

[JMadonna]

I believe that Booth had enough time to plan that jump. He used the flag to lessen the impact of his descent. The spur getting caught in the flag was not accidental but planned. Can't prove it but looking at it from his point of view it makes perfect sense to me. If I had to make that jump that's what I'd do.

However, taking JWB at his dramatic word and he broke the leg on the leap he then proceeded to (a) run off the stage without a trace of a limp and (b) mount a recalcitrant horse and took off to the bridge.

Now we know he left his hat in the theater but he had one at the bridge. Bill's evidence that he stopped at the boarding house is admittedly sketchy but even sketchy evidence trumps none at all.

Why pursue the magical saddlebags theory? (who packs an extra hat in their saddlebags anyway?) when one can merely agree that it's probable that Booth dismounted and resupplied himself at the boarding house remounted and headed for the bridge?

If he did all the things he supposedly did after the leap from the stage with no problem, why does a quick stop for re-supply seem so unlikely?

[L Verge]

I am bowing out at this point because we are just rehashing and rehashing old theories that we have discussed since the beginning of this forum. Such is the stuff of historical fiction, so let's move on.

[BettyO]

I agree....were beating a dead horse!

[Rsmyth]

That is pretty funny Betty!

[Rick Smith]

At the very least, we do know that Booth rode approximately 15 miles on the first stage of his escape, from Ford's to Surratt's, and did that in 1 hour & 40 minutes, or there about. Even for a rider in good physical condition, this would be a quite a feat, since the average rate of speed on horseback {walk 4 mi. per hr, trot 8 mi. per hr. & canter or hand gallop 12 mi. per hr} is 8 miles per hour and considering he made the ride in the dark on roads that were most likely muddy.

[JMadonna]

To: The Magical Saddlebag theorists who accuse me of beating a dead horse.

I have merely followed the logic trail that you and other true believers have set up to it's logical conclusion. I'm glad that you finally see the disaster it's leading to and jumping off the train with your pride intact.

It's been a fun exercise.

Jerry

[Gene C]

After rereading his diary/notebook it is my impression that Booth knew someone was going to read his notations. This wasn't for private use only. He knew he had traveled less than 60 miles. He knew where he had broken his leg. He is writing as though he was explaining and justifying his actions to someone else, not himself. Plus, considering what he has done, he has enough time on his hands, he could certianly have written a lot more, if he had wanted to. I think he put down exactly what he wanted someone else to read.

[L Verge]

I did not see any disaster -- just futility, Jerry. After forty years of working at Surratt House, I will confess (and apolgize) for becoming frustrated with so many theories that have been thrown at me, my staff, and volunteers. After awhile, it is not fun anymore and, IMO, only serves to further confuse the average reader. In an age where we are seeing an almost demise in learning history, I think it is unfair to students of any age to keep muddying the waters with hypotheses.

[JMadonna]

I'm not muddying any waters Laurie and as much as I respect your expertise and experience, Bill is no-fly-by night theorist. He has a point in that it is possible (nee probable) that Booth went to the boarding-house to get at least a hat along with a gun and holster. His argument is much stronger than the magical saddlebag theory that Booth had all those items with him on his horse.

The problem is that if Booth was well enough to make a stop and dismount to get those items it casts doubt on the breaking the leg on the stage theory. Your point was that Booth was so full of adrenaline that he ignored the pain; ran and mounted his horse. Well if he indeed made a stop that would negate your adrenaline rush theory. You recognized the situation I was setting you up for so you neatly sidestepped my argument by taking the high road. I respect that.

As Bill noted we will never know the real truth. I believe that the weight of the evidence will eventually support the Kaufman theory simply because the only thing that supports Booth is his statement. No eyewitnesses or testimony support it. I don't mean to confuse the average reader but history does lie, and I don't believe in helping spread them if I can help it.

[L Verge]

No further comment, as I said, because neither of us will back down. FYI: I do not believe the saddlebag theories either. I respect Bill also, but I believe that even he will admit to resorting to historical fiction when he can't prove his theories. The great team of Tidwell, Hall, and Gaddy even did that in the preface to Come Retribution.

[wsanto]

(04-16-2014 12:19 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  To: The Magical Saddlebag theorists who accuse me of beating a dead horse.

I have merely followed the logic trail that you and other true believers have set up to it's logical conclusion. I'm glad that you finally see the disaster it's leading to and jumping off the train with your pride intact.

It's been a fun exercise.

Jerry

Perhaps he packed his saddlebags expecting to be on the lam for the next few days/weeks. He packed it with so much he apparently didn't have room for field glasses.

No one really knows for sure where Booth broke his leg. It may have occurred with a horse fall or at Fords. Both scenarios are possible. I am just saying there isn't any convincing evidence for either except, of course, for his diary entry.

All this evidence of the horse fall has taken a life of its own and, in my opinion, has been misrepresented. It seems to me the primary sources don't really support the way some of this evidence is being argued.

My read of Thomas Davis' statements does not indicate in any way that Booth's mare fell. (See previous posts)

The muddy pants and the streak of mud on Booth's face are not offered by Mudd in a context to support Booth's horse falling but seem to indicate he was splattered with mud from the ride. It's an after thought for Mudd to even mention it. If Booth's horse fell on him and trapped his leg in the stirrup on a muddy rode he would be, in my mind, caked in mud all up and down his left side. There is certainly no evidence for that.

Bill C

[RJNorton]

(04-16-2014 06:12 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  The problem is that if Booth was well enough to make a stop and dismount to get those items it casts doubt on the breaking the leg on the stage theory.

Jerry, why do you feel Booth necessarily dismounted (assuming Booth actually stopped at the boardinghouse as he escaped Washington)? If we go by Weichmann's account then we really do not know what Mary Surratt was doing at 10:30 P.M. Apparently Mary met with a "mysterious" 9:00 P.M. visitor. I think I have read that Anna Surratt later verified this visitor was Booth. Is it possible Booth gave his stuff to Mary at that time as well as hearing from her that she had given the field glasses and information to Lloyd as well as verifying that the pickets on the road would be gone? Weichmann indicates Mrs. Surratt got very nervous after this visitor departed. At 9:30 I think Smoot found her in a state of feverish excitement and she rushed him out the door. Mary then asked Weichmann to pray for her intentions. Is there any way this could be interpreted as her intention to hold on to Booth's stuff for a quick 10:30 pick up? When Weichmann indicated he didn't know what her intentions were she replied to pray for them anyway. She then chased everyone to their rooms. Weichmann says he was asleep when the president was shot. Do we know what Mrs. Surratt was doing at 10:30? Perhaps waiting outside in the dark ready to hand Booth's stuff to him as he rode by? No need to dismount if this scenario is true. Improbable, perhaps. Impossible? I don't know. My impression is that Mary Surratt was a Southern woman who despised Lincoln and would do Booth's bidding whenever requested.

[JMadonna]

(04-17-2014 04:34 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Jerry, why do you feel Booth necessarily dismounted (assuming Booth actually stopped at the boardinghouse as he escaped Washington)?

Do we know what Mrs. Surratt was doing at 10:30? Perhaps waiting outside in the dark ready to hand Booth's stuff to him as he rode by? No need to dismount if this scenario is true. Improbable, perhaps. Impossible? I don't know. My impression is that Mary Surratt was a Southern woman who despised Lincoln and would do Booth's bidding whenever requested.

Roger, under that scenario Mrs Surratt would have had to have known that Booth lost his hat at the theater and was ready to resupply him. Not just improbable but impossible. Booth would have had to either dismount or yell for Mrs Surratt from the street calling attention to himself. No testimony heard any such yell.

---

(04-16-2014 09:31 PM)wsanto Wrote:  All this evidence of the horse fall has taken a life of its own and, in my opinion, has been misrepresented. It seems to me the primary sources don't really support the way some of this evidence is being argued.

Undoubtedly some of that is true. But whatever doubts you cast on the on the testimony the sheer weight of the evidence shows that Booth lied.

The diary was released 2 years after the event and witnesses were shocked by the claim since no one saw any evidence of it. Yet the claim took on a life of its own and soon the story was getting a re-write.

[wsanto]

(04-17-2014 07:08 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  The diary was released 2 years after the event and witnesses were shocked by the claim since no one saw any evidence of it. Yet the claim took on a life of its own and soon the story was getting a re-write.

Jerry,

The papers were reporting that it was "now believed" that Booth broke his leg leaping from the box at Ford's and "not in a horse fall" within days after Booth was killed at Garrett's farm. I'll try to find the article from the New York paper that reports this.

In fact the reports of the horse fall were disbelieved by Dr. George Mudd per his Townsend interview a year or so after the event (see previous thread). He clearly states he believed the break occurred at the theatre. And Thomas Jones wrote in his book years later matter-of-factly that Booth broke his leg at Fords and that he believed the horse fall claimed by Mudd was a lie.

Bill C

---

Here is a link to the newspaper (Washingtion Evening Star, and New York Times) reports from April 27th, 1865. Click on easy to read transcripts. Both report on Booth's diary and the belief that Booth broke his leg jumping to stage and not in a horse fall

http://www.iment.com/maida/familytree/bu...pr1865.htm