Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Rick Smith · (This post was last modified: 12-23-2016 06:01 PM by Rick Smith.)

Very good post, Bill.

I believe that Booth broke his leg on the road. The mare's injuries surely testify to a serious accident, and she obviously came down hard on her left side.

Booth's behavior at Mudd's (not saying much of anything and sleeping for many hours) speak to his exhaustion as a consequence of riding while injured. The injuries to his back and leg would have felt so much worse and may have even been exacerbated by having to be in the saddle for so long a time. He would have been completely exhausted.

J. Beckert · 12-23-2016, 06:57 PM

While we'll never figure out definitively where Booth broke his leg, I think Rick brings up an interesting point - what an exhaustive night Booth had since leaving 10th. St.

Up late the night before, writing his mother a letter in the early morning hours, then up early the next morning and having an extremely busy day with little, if any, rest. Drinking throughout the day (more than he should have, with what he had in mind) and a long jump that surely injured his back. Landing awkwardly and leaving "a rent in the Baize green carpet" (See photo, with it visible between the lower boxes, possibly enhanced by souvenir hunters) on the stage and a semi-circular indentation in the stage (his boot heel), he then mounted his horse and began the 14 mile ride to the Surratt Tavern. While today we think of a 14 mile ride as nothing, this ride took him almost 2 hours, part of it (or maybe all of it) with his leg broken. Riding a skittish horse, trying to control it with half his riding faculties useless and painful, using every muscle in his body to keep him in the saddle and to keep the horse moving him south on a cold and wet night, he had to be completely exhausted by the time he got to Mudd's, almost 30 miles south of Washington.

John Fazio · 12-23-2016, 08:31 PM

BINZEL:

PLEASE SEE MY COMMENTS IN CAPITAL LETTERS:

(12-23-2016 12:20 PM)wpbinzel Wrote: As usual, this has been a very good discussion. The consensus appears to in favor of Booth’s account that he broke his left fibula at Ford’s Theater. Because of a lack of certainty and my firm belief that your guess is as good as mine, I have not weighed into the debate. However, for the sake of the discussion, I offer the following observations in support of the competing notion, that Booth’s horse fell, trapping his foot in the stirrup:

1. Most telling are the statements and letters of the Ford’s Theater eyewitnesses that were written within forty-eight hours after the shot was fired. They are fairly consistent that Booth landed awkwardly, but then he bounced back to his feet and “ran,” “rushed rapidly,” or “ran with lightning speed” across the stage and out the back door of the theater. I am not aware of any immediately contemporaneous report or statement of Booth limping. It’s not until some years later that “eyewitness” and second-hand accounts included verbiage suggesting that Booth limped or otherwise struggled to reach the back door of Ford’s Theater. THERE ARE AS MANY OR MORE ACCOUNTS OF EYEWITNESSES WHO STATED THAT BOOTH HAD DIFFICULTY CROSSING THE STAGE, "LIMPED, "STUMBLED",
"HOPPED", "DRAGGED HIS FOOT", "HOPPED LIKE A BULL FROG", ETC., AS THERE ARE ACCOUNTS OF A SMOOTH PASSAGE. CONFLICTS IN EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY ARE AN EVERY DAY THING.

2. Joseph “Peanut John” Burroughs was question on April 15, 1865 and said: “I had been sitting on the carpenter bench [outside the rear of Ford’s Theater] holding the horse for three or four minutes when I heard a pistol go off in the direction of the stage. I then went up towards the door leading the horse when here comes Mr. Booth out of the door. He haloed ‘Give me that horse’; when he had one foot in the stirrup. I had hold of the bridal and Mr. Booth struck me with the butt of a knife or dagger he had drew in his hand. He struck me on the breast and knocked me down. He then kicked me.” A man with a broken left fibula two inches above the ankle, even if fueled by adrenaline, likely would have found it difficult to mount a horse and try to kick someone with his right foot as he mounted. BURROUGHS ALSO SAID THAT BOOTH "HOPPED OUT OF THE THEATER" AND "GALLOPED AWAY AFTER HAVING SOME DIFFICULTY MOUNTING".

3. We know that Booth rented “a bay mare, 16 hands high, a small star [o]n the forehead, large black legs tail and mane” from a livery stable on C Street owned by James M. Pumphrey. David Herold visited Naylor’s Stables on E Street and rented a horse described by Naylor’s manager, John Fletcher, as “a light roan with black legs, black tail & mane.”

4. After he fled Ford’s Theater, the next person to see Booth for certain was Sergeant Silas T. Cobb, the captain of the guard at the Navy Yard Bridge. Cobb testified that Booth “was mounted on a bright bay horse, rather below medium size, dark legs, long tail and mane.” He was allowed to pass. Ten minutes later, Cobb allowed another rider “on an iron gray or roan horse, with a long tail” pass as well. The second rider was identified as David Herold.

5. By the time they reached Surratt’s tavern, Booth and Herold had changed horses. John Lloyd testified that two men on horseback, “David Herold and a man I did not know,” arrived at the tavern around 12:15 a.m. on the morning of Saturday, April 15, 1865. According to Lloyd: “Herold rode a bay horse, medium-sized, about 15 hands high, dark mane and tail; she appeared to be a tolerably smart animal. The horse the other man rode was a large horse and seemed to be a gray or roan in the night. Herold went into the bar and got a bottle of whiskey which he brought out to the other man, who remained on his horse. I asked Herold if he wanted the other carbine, when the other man spoke and said he could not carry a carbine as his leg was broke, and he wanted to find a surgeon and have it set.” The roan horse may have a gentler ride, but it questionable whether someone with a broken left leg would have voluntarily dismounted one horse in order to mount another. NOT REALLY. THE BREAK IN THE FIBULA WAS NOT SERIOUS, WHICH IS WHY HE WAS ABLE TO CONTINUE TO AMBULATE AND EFFECT HIS ESCAPE. THE CHANGE OF HORSES WAS ACCOMPLISHED BECAUSE THE SPIRITED BAY MARE AND BOOTH'S INJURY WERE NOT A GOOD FIT.

6. After leaving Surratt’s tavern, their next stop was the home of Dr. Mudd. According to Mudd’s statement: “Last Saturday morning, April 15th, about four o’clock, two men called at my house and knocked very loudly. I was aroused by the noise, as it was such an unusual thing for persons to knock so loudly. I took the precaution of asking who were there before opening the door, but before doing so they told me they were two strangers on their way to Washington, that one of their horses had fallen, by which one of the men had broken his leg. On opening the door I found [a man] on a horse led by the other man, who had tied his horse to a tree nearby. I aided the man in getting off his horse and into the house, and laid him on a sofa in my parlor. He seemed to be very much injured in the back, and complained very much of it. On examination, I found there was a straight fracture of the tibia [sic] about above the ankle. My examination was quite short and I did not find the adjoining bone fractured in any way. I do not regard it a peculiarly painful or dangerous wound; there was nothing resembling a compound fracture.” If Dr. Mudd is to be believed – and that is open to discussion – Booth’s main source of discomfort was his back, which could have been injured in a fall with his horse. IT COULD ALSO HAVE BEEN INJURED IN THE GRACELESS FALL TO THE STAGE. ASSUMING MUDD IS NOT LYING (AGAIN!), WOULD ANYONE REALLY EXPECT BOOTH OR HEROLD TO TELL THE DOCTOR THAT BOOTH HAD INJURED HIS LEG WHEN HE FELL AWKWARDLY FROM THE UPPER BOX TO THE STAGE AFTER ASSASSINATING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? IS IT NOT MORE REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT BY THIS TIME BOOTH HAD INSTRUCTED HEROLD AS TO WHAT THEIR COVER STORY WOULD BE FOR ALL THE PEOPLE WHOSE HELP THEY WERE GOING TO BE NEEDING.

7. Mudd helped Booth up a flight of stairs to a guest bedroom, set his leg, and invited Booth and Herold to rest. In the morning, Herold came down for breakfast and then returned to bed. Herold reappeared around noon, in time for lunch. Mrs. Mudd later said that she became concerned about the sick man: “As he had nothing to eat during the day, I took up to his room some cake, a couple of oranges, and some wine on a tray. I placed the tray on the table by the bed, asked him how he was feeling and if I could do anything for him. His reply was, ‘My back hurts me dreadfully. I must have hurt it when the horse fell and broke my leg.’” Perhaps Dr. Mudd and Mrs. Mudd coordinated their stories about Booth’s injured back, but toward what end? THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO COORDINATE THE STORY; MORE LIKELY, THEY WERE MERELY PARROTING THE STORY THEY HAD BEEN FED BY THE FUGITIVES.

8. Thomas Davis, a laborer at the Mudd farm, was questioned on April 29th. He said that he did not see Booth and Herold arrive, but he did see their horses. Davis described one as “a light roan horse, medium size.” “The other horse,” he said, “was a small bay mare.... [S]he 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.” DAVIS ALSO SAID THAT HE SAW THE BAY AND ROAN ON THE 15TH AND THAT THE BAY WAS "IN EXCELLENT TRIM". FURTHER, FRANK WASHINGTON, DR. MUDD'S SERVANT WHO TOOK CARE OF BOOTH'S AND HEROLD'S HORSES, SAID THAT "NEITHER OF THE HORSES APPEARED TO ME TO BE SPATTERED WITH MUD BY A FALL".

9. While hiding in the pine thicket, Booth wanted newspapers. He likely wanted to read the “reviews” of what he considered to be his greatest performance on the stage. He was not prepared for what the papers reported. It was inconceivable to him that he was cast as a cowardly villain, who struck from behind and without warning. His letter of vindication to the editor of the National Intelligencer, left in the care of John Mathews, never appeared in print. Greatly troubled that his view of events was not reported, Booth utilized the only means available to him to make them known. He made notes in an 1864 daybook that he carried. Sitting in the damp pine thicket, cold, hungry and frustrated, on or about April 17th, Booth began to use the daybook as a “diary” to record his version of events: “[1] I walked with a firm step through a thousand of his friends, was stopped, but pushed on. [2] A Col[onel]- was at his side. [3] I shouted Sic semper before I fired. [4] In jumping broke my leg. [5] I passed all his pickets, rode sixty miles that night, with the bones of my leg tearing the flesh at every jump.” Sentence [4] is the touchstone on which the belief that Booth broke his leg at Ford’s Theater is anchored. However, sentences [1], [2], [3], and [5] all contain falsehoods, intentional or otherwise. I DISAGREE. ALL FOUR STATEMENTS REFLECT WHAT HAD HAPPENED, ALLOWING FOR EXAGGERATION IN NO. 5. SEE MY PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE ABOVE FOR EXPLANATIONS If we know that four out of five claims are false, it certainly raises a question about the credibility of the remaining claim, [4].

As several have already said, we know that Booth had a broken fibula, but probably will never know for certain how or when he broke it. Other than Booth’s naked assertion, there is not much to support his claim that he broke his leg at Ford’s Theater. I DISAGREE. THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE FAVORS THE CONCLUSION THAT THE FRACTURE OCCURRED WHEN HE FELL TO THE STAGE (ACTUALLY WHEN HE LET HIMSELF DROP THE LAST FEW FEET AFTER CLAMBERING FROM THE BOX, MAKING USE OF THE BALUSTRADE AND ONE OF THE FLAGSTAFFS). IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT ALL BUT TWO ASSASSINATION HISTORIANS, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, ACCEPT THE THEATER AS THE PLACE WHERE THE LEG INJURY OCCURRED. KAUFFMAN AND GOOD ARE THE EXCEPTIONS. Riding at night was hazardous, especially if the riders were in a hurry. A horse’s misstep in on a rut, rock, fallen branch, root, or any number of obstacles in the dark could cause the horse to fall and roll on its side, trapping the rider’s foot in the stirrup. A broken leg just above the ankle seems to have been a common result of such an incident. To me, that seems to be more likely to have been what occurred. IT IS, OF COURSE, POSSIBILE THAT THERE WAS AN INCIDENT INVOLVING HIS HORSE AND THAT IT AGGRAVATED HIS PRE-EXISTING CONDITION, OR THAT IT DID NOT AGGRAVATE HIS PRE-EXISTING CONDITION, BUT SUPPLIED THE COVER STORY HE KNEW HE WOULD NEED.

JOHN

wpbinzel · (This post was last modified: 12-23-2016 11:58 PM by wpbinzel.)

(12-23-2016 08:31 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.

RJNorton · 12-24-2016, 05:21 AM

My personal opinion is the same as John's, but my question relates to three telegrams Dave Taylor wrote about on this forum. I will quote from a post Dave made on February 4, 2013. Dave is discussing three telegrams written only nine days (April 23, 1865) after Booth shot Lincoln:

Dave wrote:

Two of the telegrams are from Col. William Wood, who would later be in charge of Mary Surratt, Dr. Mudd and many witnesses and suspects in the Old Capital Prison. He writes in the morning of April 23rd, the following:

"There is no doubt but that Booth broke one of the bones in his leg in the jump on the stage of the theatre immediately after the murder."

Later the same day he sends the following:

"The assassins changed horses. Herold was riding the bay mare obtained from Pumphrey's Stable, and it may be possible that she fell or threw off Booth and broke his leg. However, I believe as I have written this morning."

The 3rd telegram, sent at 8 pm on April 23rd is from Major John Waite, who, like William Wood, is forwarding information gleaned from Brytantown. It says, in part:

"Booth fractured a bone of his leg in jumping upon the stage, not by falling near Bryantown."

John mentions at least one of these telegrams in Decapitating the Union. I find it amazing that already, 9 days after the assassination, both theories we discuss here were already being mentioned in telegrams. My own take is that the telegrams are supportive of the break happening in the jump at Ford's (although the horse fall theory is also mentioned).

Can anyone explain how both Wood and Waite knew of the possible break at Ford's? Is it possible there were eyewitnesses at Ford's who are not in Good's book but who talked to authorities and said they saw Booth limp off the stage? And Wood and Waite had talked to these people? Or does all this come from conversations in Bryantown?

From what source(s) did Wood and Waite get the idea the break happened at Ford's?

Dennis Urban · 12-24-2016, 09:15 AM

(12-24-2016 05:21 AM)RJNorton Wrote: My personal opinion is the same as John's, but my question relates to three telegrams Dave Taylor wrote about on this forum. I will quote from a post Dave made on February 4, 2013. Dave is discussing three telegrams written only nine days (April 23, 1865) after Booth shot Lincoln:

Dave wrote:

Two of the telegrams are from Col. William Wood, who would later be in charge of Mary Surratt, Dr. Mudd and many witnesses and suspects in the Old Capital Prison. He writes in the morning of April 23rd, the following:

"There is no doubt but that Booth broke one of the bones in his leg in the jump on the stage of the theatre immediately after the murder."

Later the same day he sends the following:

"The assassins changed horses. Herold was riding the bay mare obtained from Pumphrey's Stable, and it may be possible that she fell or threw off Booth and broke his leg. However, I believe as I have written this morning."

The 3rd telegram, sent at 8 pm on April 23rd is from Major John Waite, who, like William Wood, is forwarding information gleaned from Brytantown. It says, in part:

"Booth fractured a bone of his leg in jumping upon the stage, not by falling near Bryantown."

John mentions at least one of these telegrams in Decapitating the Union. I find it amazing that already, 9 days after the assassination, both theories we discuss here were already being mentioned in telegrams. My own take is that the telegrams are supportive of the break happening in the jump at Ford's (although the horse fall theory is also mentioned).

Can anyone explain how both Wood and Waite knew of the possible break at Ford's? Is it possible there were eyewitnesses at Ford's who are not in Good's book but who talked to authorities and said they saw Booth limp off the stage? And Wood and Waite had talked to these people? Or does all this come from conversations in Bryantown?

From what source(s) did Wood and Waite get the idea the break happened at Ford's?

I agree with John's contention. I also point out that, as stated, Col. Wood's information was 9 days old when he wrote the telegrams. He likely heard several stories during that time and based his broken leg comment on the majority of evidence he heard during that time period. Wood was very emphatic about his theory and said so in the telegrams.

What I find even more interesting in the telegrams is the information he relates about the riders changing horses! The knowledge of this fact could only have resided with a few people. I wonder if he ever stated his source for this piece of information. That source may also have been his primary source for the broken leg theory.

John Fazio · 12-24-2016, 09:40 AM

BINZEL:

PLEASE SEE MY COMMENTS BELOW IN CAPITAL LETTERS. I HOPE YOU DON'T MIND THIS METHOD OF COMMUNICATION; IT SAVES ME TIME.

(12-23-2016 11:57 PM)wpbinzel Wrote:
(12-23-2016 08:31 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. THANK YOU. I also recognize that reasonable people may draw different conclusions from a set of information. ABSOLUTELY TRUE. 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). YOU COULD NOT BE MORE RIGHT. REPEATEDLY, IN DECAPITATING THE UNION I FOUND THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM TO BE WRONG, OR, IN ANY CASE, MORE LIKELY TO BE WRONG.

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. ALSO TRUE. 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. HIS CREDIBILITY IS BEST JUDGED BY WHAT WE KNOW FROM OTHER SOURCES, INCLUDING HIM. FOR EXAMPLE, HARBIN STATED THAT BOOTH SAID TO HIM THAT "COURAGE ALONE PROPELLED HIM ACROSS THE STAGE AFTER HIS SPRAWLING JUMP FROM THE BOX. IF HE HADN'T BEEN VERY COURAGEOUS, HE WOULD HAVE GIVEN UP RIGHT THERE." HE ADDED THAT HE THOUGHT FOR AN INSTANT THAT HE WAS GOING TO FAINT. TO ME, THIS DESCRIPTION FROM ANOTHER SOURCE AS TO BOOTH'S STATE OF MIND IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH A BROKEN FIBULA. WHAT OTHER IMPEDIMENT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED SO MUCH COURAGE TO OVERCOME? 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. AGREED.

JOHN

L Verge · 12-24-2016, 10:01 AM

Thank you, John, for quoting complete statements made by Davis and Washington at the Mudd farm. It is human nature to only quote what one needs to prove a point, and many historians use that ability frequently and obscure some of the facts.

For fear of upsetting some people, I would like to clarify that Tim Good worked extensively with Michael Kauffman on his original Eyewitness thesis - for that is what his project started out as, a Master's thesis. Tim had heard Mike give a talk on the reliability of witnesses, and it meshed perfectly with Tim's work as an NPS ranger at Ford's. He approached Mike for guidance, and Mike was happy to help.

The thesis proved so successful that it led to a final book publication. Behind the scenes, however, there arose some dissension over whose research went into that publication. In the end, to me, the book has been a vital part of understanding the events at Ford's since it brought together, under one cover, statements that were otherwise floating around in sundry files.

DIFFERENT QUESTION: Shortly after "recovering" from a possible fall around Soper's Hill, the fugitives encountered Polk Gardiner and companion repairing a wagon near Jenkins Corner. I do not remember what the brief conversation was (other than asking directions?), but if anyone is privy to Gardiner's statement, does it mention injuries? Seems to me that they were the first to encounter Booth and Herold after the supposed fall.

BettyO · (This post was last modified: 12-24-2016 11:11 AM by BettyO.)

Not to be facetious, but what was with the clumsy horses JWB and Powell were riding?

Supposedly Powell's one-eyed pacer also fell while attempting to jump a ditch (see Steer's The Evidence; as well as Cleveland Leader 05/05/1865). Powell's horse also had a bruised/cut shoulder as well as being lame when found by John Toffey....Powell himself had a blackened eye and a bruised lip as well as being knocked out (according to what Powell told Gillette).

wpbinzel · (This post was last modified: 12-24-2016 12:03 PM by wpbinzel.)

(12-24-2016 05:21 AM)RJNorton Wrote: From what source(s) did Wood and Waite get the idea the break happened at Ford's?

Roger - I agree, and in my view, the answer to that very question may be a key factor in the debate. I have not seen or read anything that would make the how Booth broke his leg anything more than conjecture or supposition on their part. In their messages, I don't think it was the "how" that they thought was relevant; their main point it was that Booth had a broken leg. Without knowing the source of their information, I am not convinced that it was anything more than speculation. That it matched Booth's version, certainly does give it credence, but the telegrams were sent after Booth concocted (forgive me) his version of the story, and which may have been passed along by his surrogates. Mere speculation on my part.

(12-24-2016 10:01 AM)L Verge Wrote: Thank you, John, for quoting complete statements made by Davis and Washington at the Mudd farm. It is human nature to only quote what one needs to prove a point, and many historians use that ability frequently and obscure some of the facts.

Laurie - I know that you meant your comment to be in general, and I certainly take it as such. But, truth be told, when I was composing the post, I included the complete statements by Davis and Washington. But for the sake of brevity (of which few people would accuse me), I edited them out as not being relevant or being redundant to the point.

John correctly quotes Washington as saying, "Neither of the horses appeared to me to be spattered with mud by a fall." Why is that not relevant? Because, if Booth's horse fell, it fell sometime before Booth and Herold got to Surrattsville, and that would likely have been sometime before midnight. They did not arrive at the Mudd's until 4 a.m. Remember, it was raining that night, so the horses had a four hour shower. It would seem probable that in that time the rain would have washed away any mud spatters. That the horses did not kick up any mud on themselves or each other would indicate that Booth and Herald traveled at a slow pace. Consequently, the absence of spattered mud under these circumstances does not advance either theory.

And if we are going to quote complete statements, let's do exactly that. Davis' statement was: "One of the horses was a small bay mare in excellent trim, with a piece of skin off on the inside of the left foreleg about as big as a silver dollar." [emphasis added] I view this to be entirely consistent with, and reinforce, his testimony that the mare was "very lame."

John Fazio · 12-24-2016, 12:13 PM

(12-24-2016 10:01 AM)L Verge Wrote: Thank you, John, for quoting complete statements made by Davis and Washington at the Mudd farm. It is human nature to only quote what one needs to prove a point, and many historians use that ability frequently and obscure some of the facts.

For fear of upsetting some people, I would like to clarify that Tim Good worked extensively with Michael Kauffman on his original Eyewitness thesis - for that is what his project started out as, a Master's thesis. Tim had heard Mike give a talk on the reliability of witnesses, and it meshed perfectly with Tim's work as an NPS ranger at Ford's. He approached Mike for guidance, and Mike was happy to help.

The thesis proved so successful that it led to a final book publication. Behind the scenes, however, there arose some dissension over whose research went into that publication. In the end, to me, the book has been a vital part of understanding the events at Ford's since it brought together, under one cover, statements that were otherwise floating around in sundry files.

DIFFERENT QUESTION: Shortly after "recovering" from a possible fall around Soper's Hill, the fugitives encountered Polk Gardiner and companion repairing a wagon near Jenkins Corner. I do not remember what the brief conversation was (other than asking directions?), but if anyone is privy to Gardiner's statement, does it mention injuries? Seems to me that they were the first to encounter Booth and Herold after the supposed fall.

Laurie:

As nearly as I can tell, Polk said nothing about an injury. In his trial testimony (Pitman, p. 85; Poore, Vol. I, p. 255) he said nothing about the riders' appearance either, though he did describe the horses and he did mention that both riders were riding "very fast". (In his statement, he quotes his companion as saying that both men were "riding their horses to death to overtake each other".) In his statement, however (LA, pp. 584-586), he describes Booth's and Herold's dress, including Booth's slouch hat, and then says something that may be significant to this discussion, namely that Booth "did not seem to have a strong voice; it appeared to be a high-keyed weak voice". I do not recall that Booth's voice was ever described as high-keyed and weak. That it was so described on this occasion would suggest that Booth was in pain. If so, it had to be from his fractured fibula and also, probably, his painful back. Inasmuch as Gardiner encountered Booth approximately three miles out of Washington, that would mean that the injury occurred when he fell to the stage or within approximately three miles of the city, still about 11 miles from the tavern. If the latter, that would mean that the fractured fibula, despite being described by Dr. Mudd as a slight injury, was already causing him so much pain that it affected his voice. That seems unlikely. It seems more likely, therefore, that the injury occurred in the theater and that he aggravated it by crossing the stage, making his way to the back door, "hopping out the back door", mounting his horse "with difficulty" and then bounding through the streets of the city to the bridge, after the crossing of which he then rode his horse "to death" to get away from the roiling city. That scenario seems more consistent with a level of pain that would affect his voice at the three-mile mark than an injury that occurred within that three-mile distance and that was described by Dr. Mudd as not being a serious injury.

John