Breaking a leg

[J. Beckert]

There's more variables to it than that, Jerry and I wish it were that simple. Many scenarios could apply here, or even several; there's no cut and dried answer.

[RJNorton]

In the 1990 article in Blue & Gray magazine, Mike Kauffman says, "During his escape Booth told about a dozen people he had broken his leg when his horse stumbled and fell on him."

Does anyone know how Mike arrived at this number? Are all these statements in The Evidence?

[LincolnMan]

I wonder how many of the folks he told the "horse story" to were also informed by him that he had shot Lincoln. If Booth was wanting to conceal his deed, he wouldn't have told them that he broke the bone leaping unto the stage after shooting the president.

[JMadonna]

(11-28-2012 09:49 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:  There's more variables to it than that, Jerry and I wish it were that simple. Many scenarios could apply here, or even several; there's no cut and dried answer.

IMO There is far more evidence to support the horse fall than the stage leap. Booth's claim is hearsay supported by no witnesses nor physical evidence - just a bunch of 'could have happeneds'. The only thing it has is the tradition of how the story was told.

From the statements of witnesses even Laurie is convinced the horse fell somewhere along the road. She just thinks that has nothing to do with Booth's leg being pinned underneath and broken. I mean what are the odds of that happening?

If you go to bed on a clear night and wake up to see snow on the ground your logical conclusion is that it snowed overnight. However, there are other scenarios (ex: trucks from Hollywood blew the snow from trucks to film a scene) but none are as likely as the weather.

Don't be the person who claims that Booth was snatched from the stage by a lasso from his friends. The leg was broken only one way and the stronger evidence is by a falling horse.

[wsanto]

(11-29-2012 08:30 AM)LincolnMan Wrote:  I wonder how many of the folks he told the "horse story" to were also informed by him that he had shot Lincoln. If Booth was wanting to conceal his deed, he wouldn't have told them that he broke the bone leaping unto the stage after shooting the president.

Booth and Herold had developed a narrative including aliases and a rather detailed explanation for the plight (confederate soldiers returning home). They would have, obviously, needed to offer an explanation for the broken leg. In my opinion, Mudd. probably knowing the truth, further embellished their narrative to minimize his own complicity in abetting the fugitives.

If Herold's horse was "lame" from the fall. It did pretty well getting to Mudd's house and from there to Bryantown and back and then to Cox's house and then to the pine thicket over the next 24 hours? How lame was that horse?

---

(11-29-2012 09:11 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(11-28-2012 09:49 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:  There's more variables to it than that, Jerry and I wish it were that simple. Many scenarios could apply here, or even several; there's no cut and dried answer.

IMO There is far more evidence to support the horse fall than the stage leap. Booth's claim is hearsay supported by no witnesses nor physical

Booth's claim is not hearsay. It was written by him in his diary. Apparently he was alone when his horse fell. That makes everyone else's statements hearsay based on what he told them. He was lying to everyone he encountered as well. His statements to them have to be considered at least as fabricated/embellished as his diary entries.

Was his diary account exaggerated? Absolutely. Does this mean that he created the narrative that he injured himself jumping to the stage? Why? How does his breaking his leg leaping to the stage improve his story for prosterity?

[Laurie Verge]

I am making one final statement in the hopes of making my position clear and avoiding further pokes at my intelligence. Yes, I'm an old-timer who sticks with the belief that Booth broke his leg at the theater and that, even if his horse fell, it only aggravated what was already broken.

MY MAIN POINT throughout this whole ordeal, however, has always been that the issue of where the the leg was broken has absolutely nothing to do with the overall effect that the assassination had on American history. I would like more creative juices to be flowing on issues that do matter as I stated previously regarding who backed Booth, Confederate hierarcy involvement, Canadian influence, etc.

[Gene C]

(11-29-2012 10:10 AM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  I am making one final statement in the hopes of making my position clear and avoiding further pokes at my intelligence. Yes, I'm an old-timer who sticks with the belief that Booth broke his leg at the theater and that, even if his horse fell, it only aggravated what was already broken.

I agree with Laurie. He broke his leg and needed medical attention. How he broke his leg is a detail of somewhat minor consequence. Fun to discuss, but not a key issue like: was Booth in competition to see who could kill Lincoln first, why did Booth hide out in India, or why would you name your son Beverly (Tucker)?

[J. Beckert]

Quote:Don't be the person who claims that Booth was snatched from the stage by a lasso from his friends. The leg was broken only one way and the stronger evidence is by a falling horse.

I agree that the stronger evidence points to the leg being broken by a horse fall. I also have a lot of respect for the medical Doctor's who've chimed in stating that it may have very well been broken or fractured by the jump to the stage and because it's not a weight bearing bone, his escape was unhampered. His horse did roll, but did that finish the job? The horse roll story is not a given by itself ; not beyond a reasonable doubt anyway. I don't know and anyone who does is dead.

[wsanto]

(11-29-2012 10:10 AM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  MY MAIN POINT throughout this whole ordeal, however, has always been that the issue of where the the leg was broken has absolutely nothing to do with the overall effect that the assassination had on American history. I would like more creative juices to be flowing on issues that do matter as I stated previously regarding who backed Booth, Confederate hierarcy involvement, Canadian influence, etc.

I know you all have probably been down this road a number of times and I understand your frustration with this thread.

But for me, new to most of this, it has been a very valuable and interesting learning experience. I am very impressed with all those that have offered their opinions and debated their case. It is a minor controversial aspect of the assassination but also a great exercise for beginners like me to be involved with.

[Mark MacKenzie]

I am no assassination buff; I know very little but it occurs to me that...

Booth caught his spur on the flag. Undisputed?
Which means he landed funny. Undisputed?

When I broke my collar bone, I didn't know it was broken until I was told which was much later in a hospital.

Is it possible and correlates to known facts, that Booth injured himself somewhat in the fall, and that his horse also fell. If it were me I would be at a blind gallop to get outa there.

Who would know which accident caused the break? Even Booth himself wouldn't have known with complete certainty.

[J. Beckert]

One of the earliest accounts, (James Ferguson) states that Booth caught his spur on the blue "state" flag, as he called it. He also remarked that part of it was trailing on his spur as he crossed the stage. The Treasury Guards flag is indeed torn. I think that's a given. Did that throw him off balance and affect his landing? Maybe, but Rathbone also clutched his coat as he jumped and felt cloth tear. That could also be a factor.

Quote:Who would know which accident caused the break? Even Booth himself wouldn't have known with complete certainty.

That's a good point, Mark. Did Booth fracture his leg in the jump and did the horse mishap actually finish the break? Only Booth and Jerry know for sure!!
(Back at ya, Jerry!!)

[JMadonna]

(11-28-2012 09:49 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:  Booth's claim is not hearsay. It was written by him in his diary. Apparently he was alone when his horse fell. That makes everyone else's statements hearsay based on what he told them. He was lying to everyone he encountered as well. His statements to them have to be considered at least as fabricated/embellished as his diary entries.

Was his diary account exaggerated? Absolutely. Does this mean that he created the narrative that he injured himself jumping to the stage? Why? How does his breaking his leg leaping to the stage improve his story for prosterity?

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?

[J. Beckert]

That's not a quote from me, Jerry. That was from wsanto, but I know about hearsay and I agree. I've seen it tossed out of court many times. I also agree that if Booth's diary never existed the story of him breaking his leg in the jump would have never surfaced. No one, in contemporary accounts, reported that he appeared injured after his jump.

My point (and I tend to favor the horse theory myself), is that he may have done it in the leap. Maybe a painful fracture that was broken by the horse roll? Could be. Richter speculates that his painful back injury came from his leap. That could very well be. That's a perfect way to herniate some discs. It could also have come from rolling his horse. Who knows? Booth's diary is full of horsefeathers. I just feel with all the variables, we can't say for sure where the break occurred.

You do think outside the box, Jerry, but I ain't fallin' for the lasso story.

[Gene C]

My cat got caught doing something ouside the box.
Now he's outside the house.

[Mark MacKenzie]

Excellent, Gene.