(02-17-2013 02:49 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Several people have suggested that over the past few years, and it does make sense. I have a question about the direction in which Booth's horse would have fallen. According to Davis at the Mudd farm, the horse had an injury on the inside of its left foreleg or shoulder. To me, that would seem that the horse would have pitched forward, not rolled to the left side trapping Booth's leg. Even if we concede that it pitched forward and then rolled, wouldn't an expert horseman like Booth be able to get his leg free before the horse rolled on it?

Here I go again, arguing over a question that I consider moot....

Moot or Smoot?

I can't take anything away from Mr. Smoot - he helped reinforce my interest in the assassination by referencing Mr. Huntt.

(02-17-2013 01:36 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Bill, the website is here. Mike Kauffman's arguments regarding the broken leg are here.

Thanks again, Roger.

I was hoping there was a more comprehensive explanation to his theory than what I've read before. I still do not find his arguments compelling. I'll take them point by point.

Eyewitnesses at Ford''s Theatre gave no indication of the accident, except to say that the assassin landed on the stage off-balance after leaping from the Presidential Box.

As we all know, the statements of the witnesses to the assassination at Ford's were all over the place. What did Booth say? When? Did he stumble or was he pulled off stage with a lasso? Like we've debated before, a broken fibula (being non-weight bearing) can be overcome like an ankle sprain with proper doses of adrenaline and alcohol.

During his escape, Booth told about a dozen people he had broken his leg when his horse stumbled and fell on him. He even said this to some people (such as John Lloyd) who knew about the assassination.

Perhaps he told the cover story to everyone he didn't fully know or trust. He also told a number of people he was an injured confederate soldier coming home from the war. Obviously we know this was a cover story. Why not the horse fall?

As far as LLoyd. I believe it is apparent that he was using the cover upon his initial arrival to Surratt's Tavern and up to his then last-minute admission that he killed the President. No need at this point to correct the cover story.

He must have told the a different story to Jone's during his week in the Pine thicket. Jone's book presents it as a matter of fact that he broke his leg at Ford's

David Herold backed up the stumbling horse story, adding that he himself was there and helped Booth mount up again right after the accident.

According to Herold? Completely unreliable. If he was in on the cover story it makes sense for him to carry that cover to his death.

When Booth mounted his horse in Baptist Alley (and had trouble with the skittish mare), his left leg bore all the weight and tortion of his body, yet he indicated no pain at the time and, and later, doctors did not report seeing signs of this trauma to the injury.

I don't even know what to say but that this starts with complete speculation. How does Mr Kauffman know wether Booth grimaced mounting the horse? He was obviously agitated by something as he struck a blow to Mr. Burroughs before he galloped away.

I'm also not sure what post-mortom evidence would be apparent at he fracture line that would be necessarily altered by mounting a horse.

Sgt. Cobb at the Navy Yard Bridge, who saw Booth 20 minutes after the shooting, noted that the assassin's voice was smooth and that he appeared at ease. Everyone else, from Surrattsville down (after the horse falling incident), said that Booth's voice was cracked in pain.

Booth was an actor. He may also have had a high pain threshold. He was also running high on adrenaline and alcohol. Twenty minutes is a short time and the full effect of swelling and inflammation would peak somewhat later. I am sure he was in a great deal more pain after riding hard to Surrattsville from the Navy Yard Bridge.

Dr. Mudd once said that Booth's pants were muddy when he arrived on the morning of April 15.

Wasn't it raining and were not the roads muddy? I assume both Herold and Booth had muddy pants.

Thomas David, a farmhand at Dr. Mudd's, told detectives that Booth's mare had a badly swollen left front shoulder and a fresh cut on its leg. Davis fed and cared for the horse during Booth's visit.

This is Kauffman's best evidence. But Mr. David, probably believing the cover story, may have seen more into the horse than he would have noted otherwise. The horse was ridden hard for many more miles along the escape before meeting his demise in the pine thicket. Jones came upon the bay mare upon initially entering the pine thicket. He describes this in his book. There is no mention that the horse appeared injured.

Booth's entire diary entry is filled with embellishments and is an unreliable account of the events.

I agree with this point. It is unreliable for being somewhat exaggerated but it is mostly based on the truth. Unless he was falsely validating a theory he read in the papers, it is awfully coincidental that the investigators in Bryantown came to the same conclusion that Booth later admits to.

Bill, as usual, makes good points in his response to Kauffman's evidence. To me, the BEST evidence (since we will probably never know for certain) must be the recollection of Jones and the Wood telegrams, with the telegrams being the most compelling. Consider this:

1. As stated by several here, Jones had more direct interaction with Booth and Herold post-assassination than any other person. Also, Booth totally trusted Jones and was very grateful for the service Jones provided him (their send off in the rowboat is evidence of this.) As such, Booth would have had no reason to give Jones the "cover story" of the horse fall that he gave everyone else (Mudd, Lloyd, etc.) - he would have told him the truth because he knew that Jones could not betray him because to do so would implicate himself. Booth clearly told Jones that he broke his leg at Ford's. Jones even confirms knowledge of the horse fall cover (showing that he knew both versions were being debated (even back THEN! haha), yet Jones clearly states the horse fall was a cover. How would he know this except for Booth and Herold telling him that? What reason did Jones have to lie about that detail in his book 20 years after the fact? None.

2. In response, the Kauffman backers could say that Booth lied to Jones about Ford's as Booth was writing his diary and attempting to make sure he sounded more heroic for posterity. Perhaps, but the fatal flaw with that theory is the telegram that Wood sent on April 23, 1865 where Wood not only mentioned the Ford's break theory, but was adament that it WAS the truth. This was well before Booth's diary was ever found or before Jones was "duped" into believing Booth. The question is not only what Wood based his certain belief on (I would love to know), but rather that the Ford's break was common knowledge BEFORE Booth was killed and allegedly fabricated the story. How then can Kauffman, et al claim that the "only" evidence of the Ford's break was from Booth. We know that simply is not true.

Clearly, there were witnesses that believed Booth appeared to injure his leg at Ford's. Why those testimonies have been lost to history is a puzzle (perhaps it was during the initial excitement at Petersen House when Stanton realized he needed a transcriptionist to take down statements because Stanton's staff could not keep up with the volume of information flooding in.) Ask yourself "what else COULD Wood have based his strong opinion on except for a witness at Ford's?" No one else near Bryantown could possibly know that except for the few people that Booth and Herold had encountered, and they damn sure were not divulging such information to the government then.

(02-17-2013 06:31 PM)Rhatkinson Wrote:  ...Clearly, there were witnesses that believed Booth appeared to injure his leg at Ford's. Why those testimonies have been lost to history is a puzzle (perhaps it was during the initial excitement at Petersen House when Stanton realized he needed a transcriptionist to take down statements because Stanton's staff could not keep up with the volume of information flooding in.) Ask yourself "what else COULD Wood have based his strong opinion on except for a witness at Ford's?" No one else near Bryantown could possibly know that except for the few people that Booth and Herold had encountered, and they damn sure were not divulging such information to the government then.

I realize that this is complete speculation, but a possible source for the lost evidence of the break at Ford's could be an off the record statement by someone that witnessed Booth's interaction with Mudd.

Perhaps a maid or other servant at Mudd's overheard the conversation between Mudd and Booth and relayed this information to investigators. Perhaps this was lost to history if done off the record or not recorded to any extent.

This would assume that Mudd recognized Booth, Booth informed Mudd of the assassination while being treated by Mudd and came clean on breaking his leg at Ford's.

Mudd, of course, would also learn of the horse fall cover given to Lloyd and initially to him and repeat that to investigators in order to protect his own interests.

That's a good guess, although it doesn't seem that other servants were protected from being identified (the slave/servant in Mary Surratt's house who told her relative on staff in an Army officer's home comes to mind), but things were different in Southern Maryland and the blacks there were in much greater danger of retribution than in DC. The bigger issue is that there was some evidence of the Ford's leap well before Booth's diary, thus Kauffman's entire theory of that being made up by Booth only cannot be correct.

On a larger point, I have always wondered why Booth gave Mudd the horse fall cover story in the first place (or even IF he did.) Booth had no problem blurting out about the murder to Lloyd (someone he didn't even know), so why then would he make up a lie to Mudd, a person he clearly was acquainted with and a fellow conspirator in the kidnapping plot? Perhaps Lloyd's reaction to the news made Booth realize it would not be well received as Booth originally hoped, so he decided to lie at least initially to Mudd in order to ensure that Mudd treated his leg. Until Booth got help for the leg, he couldn't take the chance that Mudd would be turned off because of the murder.

I do believe that Mudd lied about not knowing of the assassination until the next day in Bryantown. After Booth was treated, fed, and given a bed, I find it hard to believe that he would not come clean/brag about the murder to Mudd, a person who was part of the conspiracy to kidnap Lincoln. Remember that at this point, Booth still believed he would be treated as a hero for the murder, so he would have no reason NOT to tell Mudd about what he had done.

I think the truth is more likely than not that Mudd knew Booth had assassinated the President on the night of assassination, and Mudd was told Booth had injured his leg jumping onto the stage. The horse fall cover and Mudd's assertion that he didn't find out about the assassination until going to Bryantown the next day were probably covers that Mudd came up with to save his hide, and would not be something he would have readily admitted to lying about even years later when he was released from prison (Mudd still was trying to maintain his innocence, so he would never had admitted to knowing that information.)

I'm sorry, but I cannot buy the "lost evidence" idea. It makes no logical sense to me. If anyone at or around Mudd's house told investigators like Wood that Booth stated he broke his leg in jumping to the stage, the government would have seized on this. If this was so, Wood (or the person he gained the information from) would have been the key witnesss at the trial against Dr. Mudd. This piece of information would have likely led to Mudd's hanging as it would prove the government's case that he knew who Booth was, and what he had committed when he came to his house. However this did not happen. Wood did not testify even though he reported to his authorities through his telegrams what he "knew". I'm sorry, but the government wanted to get Dr. Mudd. If there was any reliability in what he said, he would have testified and led to Dr. Mudd's likely death.

Also, Jones himself admits to just repeating what he has heard when it comes to talking about the assassination: "How Booth entered the box behind the President, fired the fatal shot, stabbed Major Rathbone, who attempted to interrupt him, leaped from the box, and catching his spur in the drapery, fell, fractured his leg; sprang upon the stage, and waving his bloody knife, exclaimed, "Sic semper tyrannis," and then sped away through the darkness - has become history, and I need not dwell over it." Jones had no first hand knowledge here, but is merely repeating the accepted story. Also, he does not discard the idea of Booth telling Mudd his horse fell on him, Jones merely recounts it with no expression of it being true or false: "Booth knew the doctor, having met him and visited at his house when in the country about eighteen months beforethe 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." Jones wrote his book about thirty years after the fact. The only parts where he could have any reliability would be those where he was a direct participant (i.e. the pine thicket and setting the pair across the Potomac).

Heath, I am liking you more and more because of your thoughts on this issue, and I certainly believe William Wood (who had been a very active Union agent during the war - even friends with Mrs. Surratt's older brother) had something solid that he was going on.

However, welcome to my world of dealing with speculation and becoming frustrated when the small subject of the broken leg overwhelms the big picture of the assassination.

Dave,

I certainly do not mean to imply that I have THE answer to this puzzle (which I agree with Laurie is inconsequential in the greater scheme of the assassination, but is just one of those mysteries of history that are fun to discuss.)

I see your point about Wood not being called to testify about his evidence, and it is a valid one; however, my point is that Wood's telegram of April 23 must ruin Kauffman's theory. I say that because Kauffman states that the ONLY evidence of a Ford's break comes from Booth's diary, as no witnesses at Ford's testified about Booth appearing to be injured and the people Booth encountered on his flight all said that Booth told them he was injured in a horse fall. That simply is not true.

Answer this question if you can: what evidence COULD Wood have been referring to in his report? You will surely concede there was something he was given by way of evidence. What could it possibly be if Booth's diary alone was the reason the Ford's theory was accepted? SOMEONE told Wood that Booth broke his leg at Ford's. Who would possibly know that other than a person that Booth had spoken to directly or someone who overheard him (or Herold) saying it to someone else?

The list of people Booth spoke to would only be: Lloyd, Mudd, Swann, or Cox at that point (April 23rd). My guess is that perhaps Swann or someone around him overheard Booth or Herold say this, but feared being "outed" as a witness against Cox (who was claiming not to have known who Booth was at that point and therefore would definitely NOT want the government to hear that Booth told him he broke his leg at Ford's because that would obviously mean Cox would have to know Booth murdered Lincoln.)

Someone overheard Booth say this and reported it to the government. How else could Wood have hypothesized (much less been so certain) of the Ford's break? What other "evidence" is even possible?

Has anyone looked into whether the type of break Booth sustained is more likely to occur from the fall from the theater box or from a horse?
I can easily understand the break resulting from the fall at the theater. The injuries from a riding accident that I have heard about are more severe and at a different place on the body.

Heath,

I'm on my way into DC to visit Congressional Cemetery and I'm using my phone to briefly respond. First, I heard Kauffman speak in November and he verbally stated that there were "seeds" of the Ford's break before Boith's diary but that the main reason for the exceptance of this idea was Booth's own words. I do not see the telegrams as ruining his theory at all. Second the way I see it, if there was some legitimate evidence for Wood's telegrams, he would have testified to them. It seems to me that Wood is just conjecturing based on the common knowledge that Booth fell awkwardly to the stage and his new knowledge that Booth broke his leg.

Why would Wood even be asked to testify to the broken leg? It seems like an inconsequential thing that had nothing to do with what the military tribunal was interested in.

I still say that Booth wrote the sequence of events in his diary in the exact order in which they happened, and he places the broken leg immediately after shooting Lincoln. I also contend that, in the confusion of the first five minutes after the bullet was fired, no one would be noticing a limp from a minor fracture of a minor bone.

And finally, none of you horsemen have answered my question of a few days ago as to whether or not the reported injury to the mare's front quarter would cause her to pitch forward or roll to the left, or do both. In the latter case, could an expert rider like Booth extract his leg before having the horse roll on him?

P.S. I'm happy to learn that Mike is at least alluding to there being mention of the break at Ford's Theatre. I think one of the most frustrating things to me about the reaction to American Brutus (and Mike must feel this way also) is that everyone seems to focus only on that broken leg theory and not on all of the extreme details and worthwhile information that is in that encyclopedic work.

If I remember correctly, Mike Kauffman looked into the injury Booth received to his leg and found it to be the single most common injury a rider could receive if a horse fell with him. My impression is that the horse had her legs slide out from under her on the slick, muddy road, struck her shoulder, and rolled onto her side. One would have to be extremely lucky of fast moving to avoid being trapped by the horse's body either by the whole leg or at least by the ankle, which seems to be the case in Booth's injury.

(02-18-2013 02:09 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Why would Wood even be asked to testify to the broken leg? It seems like an inconsequential thing that had nothing to do with what the military tribunal was interested in.

I still say that Booth wrote the sequence of events in his diary in the exact order in which they happened, and he places the broken leg immediately after shooting Lincoln. I also contend that, in the confusion of the first five minutes after the bullet was fired, no one would be noticing a limp from a minor fracture of a minor bone.

And finally, none of you horsemen have answered my question of a few days ago as to whether or not the reported injury to the mare's front quarter would cause her to pitch forward or roll to the left, or do both. In the latter case, could an expert rider like Booth extract his leg before having the horse roll on him?

P.S. I'm happy to learn that Mike is at least alluding to there being mention of the break at Ford's Theatre. I think one of the most frustrating things to me about the reaction to American Brutus (and Mike must feel this way also) is that everyone seems to focus only on that broken leg theory and not on all of the extreme details and worthwhile information that is in that encyclopedic work.

Laurie, that is an excellent point. American Brutus is indeed a wonderful book, even though I have a couple of disagreements with Kauffman concerning Dr. Mudd's role (how anyone could honestly claim that he was innocent of knowing who Booth was on 4/14 is beyond me) and the broken leg causation.

Dave's information that Kauffman said there were "allusions" to the Ford's break before the discovery of Booth's diary is most interesting. There certainly is nothing in "American Brutus" or on Mike's site now that mentions anything except that the "only" evidence of a Ford's break is Booth's diary. Dave also makes an interesting point that perhaps Wood was just assuming the Ford's break based on these "allusions" to his stumble.

Perhaps that is so, but it is hard to argue on one hand that there was not one witness who claimed that Booth appeared injured at Fords and then also argue that the "seeds" of the few people who saw Booth stumble were so prevalent to indicate he broke his leg during the stumble that Wood was CERTAIN of it in his report. How could that be is no one who said he stumbled thought he appeared to be injured? Those two ideas do not add up to me.

I still maintain that Swann or someone in his family overheard Booth saying to Cox or someone else that he broke his leg at Fords, but that they were afraid of angering Cox any more than they already had by disputing his claim that Booth and Herold went inside his home. Think about it for a second: it was bad enough for a free black to contradict a powerful white neighbor on a fact of allowing two "unknown" strangers into his home, but it was a decidedly different thing to also say that Cox was told by the "stranger" that he had broken his leg at Ford's jumping from the Presidential box. That could have gotten Cox hung, and so Swann (or his family) probably recanted, and Wood knew their new "horse fall" story was baloney (thus his tone of frustration/certainty when mentioning the horse fall vs Ford's break theories.)

Thanks, Bill. I know that Kauffman did check with a national library in Maryland (I believe) that dealt with injuries sustained in horse-related accidents, and that is what he determined.

Next question: If Booth did break his leg at Ford's, we have had a number of doctors "testify" to us that the type of break would not have prevented him from mounting the horse and riding glibly by Sgt. Cobb at the bridge. Therefore, is it safe to ask if, once Booth had been in the stirrups for awhile, that leg that had been held in place by the high boot wouldn't begin to swell and cause pain? If that were the case, could Booth have ridden with his left leg free of the stirrup in order to relieve pain? Would the horse falling then cause further damage to an already broken leg? Or, back to my original speculation, could he have swung that leg up and out of the way more freely?

Finally, I am at home and away from the stack of books at work. In Herold's lengthy statement of April 27, does he specifically say that he was with Booth when the horse fell? I know that he said he helped Booth back on his horse, but that could mean that he came upon Booth after the fall. If that is the case, we have only Booth's word to go on, and I will refer you back to Booth putting the fall in the proper sequence of events as he described them in his diary.