(02-18-2013 02:45 PM)L Verge Wrote:  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.

No, he was not with Booth at the time of the alleged horse fall. Herold says that Booth was "...saying that his horse had fallen or he was thrown off, and his ankle sprained."

I enjoyed reading "American Brutus" and I consider Mr. Kauffman as a preemminent scholar on this subject. And I am thankful for his research that has greatly expanded what we know of the conspiracy and the assassination. But I do not subscribe to a lot of the conclusions he makes throughout his book. Especially with his opinions on the guilt of Mudd and Mary Surratt and, less importantly, with his opinion of the broken leg.

As far as Thomas Jones is concerned. He was there. He talked to Booth every day for a week after the assassination. It was very apparent that Booth had a broken leg. I am speculating that there were conversations and I am guessing that one of the topics was Booth's broken leg. If it happened in a horse fall, and that wasn't just a cover story, Booth would have told that to Jones. And Jones would not have forgot that even thrity years later. Booth didn't tell that to Jones. Apparently he related to Jones the story he told Mudd (the cover) and the story he wrote in his diary. One was true and one was a lie. Jones is very clear in his book as to which was which.

Now should I subscribe to Kauffman's conclusions based on all of his wonderful research done 100+ years after the fact or to Jone's conclusions based on his direct contact with Booth that he recollects thirty years after the fact?

Bill, you're gaining my seal of approval also. I've been lonely out here on the opposite end of the argument for so long on this forum. I have been sustained elsewhere by other scholars in the field, but they choose not to participate in online forums.

I echo Bill's comments entirely, especially with respect to Jones. As I stated earlier, Jones was in a unique position to know which story was baloney and which was the truth, and he had absolutely no reason to lie about his conclusion.

As to Dave's information that Kauffman told him that there were "seeds"/evidence of the Ford's break even before the finding of Booth's diary, that is news to me as there is zero mention of these "seeds" anywhere in Kauffman's research. Look at this taken directly from his own website:

In the late 1970's or early 1980's, when Mike was going through the eyewitness accounts, he noticed something: Not a single eyewitness reported seeing Booth limp as he fled across the stage after he shot President Abraham Lincoln. The more Mike looked at the testimony, the more the evidence pointed to the idea that Booth had not broken his leg in Ford's Theatre. The evidence revealed Booth's leg was broken at a later point in his escape, when his horse stumbled and fell on him.
As John Wilkes Booth escaped into the April night, authorities had no idea that he had broken his leg. Eyewitnesses in Washington, such as Sgt. Cobb and the people at Ford's had not reported seeing him limp or noted that he seemed to be in pain. (Those who remembered a limp, remembered it after Booth died and the "facts" became known). John M. Lloyd and Dr. Samuel Mudd told detectives that "a stranger" had complained of a broken leg, but it was not until Mrs. Mudd gave authorities the boot that her husband had cut off of Booth's leg, that any hard evidence came to light. The War Department then narrowed its focus to "lame man" sightings, and one of those led directly to Booth's capture.

So, how did Booth break his leg? Booth offered a clue in his own version of the shooting, which he recorded in his diary (the entire entry is below, right), "in jumping, broke my leg." Everyone took "in jumping" to mean when he jumped from the Presidential box. It could be argued that Booth was referring to another jump--a jump that caused his horse to stumble and fall.

Below are the major point's of Mike's argument. Many are excerpted from "Assassin on the Run," published by Blue and Gray Magazine in June 1990, while others are from the In the Footsteps of an Assassin, published in 2012.
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. The more specific accounts say that Booth fell on his right hand and knee, though it was the left leg that was broken.
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.
David Herold backed up the stumbling horse story, adding that he himself was there and helped Booth mount up again right after the accident.
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.
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.
Dr. Mudd once said that Booth's pants were muddy when he arrived on the morning of April 15.
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.

Booth's entire diary entry reads, “I struck boldly and not as the papers say. I walked with a firm step through a thousand of his friends, was stopped, but pushed on. A Col. Was at his side. I shouted Sic semper before I fired. In jumping broke my leg. I passed all his pickets, rode sixty miles that night, with the bone of my leg tearing the flesh at every jump. I can never repent it, though we hated to kill; Our country owed all her troubles to him, and God simply made me the instrument of his punishment. The country is not what it was. This forced union is not what I have loved. I care not what becomes of me. I have no desire to out-live my country. This night (before the deed), I wrote a long article and left it for one of the Editors for the National Intelligencer, in which I fully set forth our reasons for our proceedings. He or the Govmt”

Of course, one could argue that eyewitness testimony has flaws and adrenalin could have enabled Booth to move so quickly across the stage if he did, indeed, have an injury. Perhaps, the idea the Booth was undone by the American flag is simply too good to let go. The facts, however, support the claim that Booth broke his leg when his horse fell on him.

As you can see, Kauffman fails to mention ANY evidence of the Ford's break except for Booth's diary. However, Kauffman knows this is a fatal flaw to his argument because the Wood report and its conclusion that the leg WAS broken at Ford's. The only response to this from Kauffman theorists is to say that Wood must have assumed a Ford's break because of the people who saw Booth stumble. Read Kauffman's telling of those witnesses again and ask yourself whether anyone in their right mind would conclude such a stumble (on the wrong leg even!) was conclusive proof of the Ford's break. It is a very weak argument at best. Frankly, it is beyond debate that there was evidence of the Ford's break long before Booth's diary was ever found. Thus, Booth could not have been the sole architect of this grandeous exaggeration. What that other evidence was, we don't know (I personally think my Swann theory makes the most sense, but I am biased

Couldn't he have done both... broken the bone initially jumping from the stage, and then aggravated it some more falling from a horse?

His adrenalin must have been sky high when he jumped from the stage, and therefore if he felt no initial pain, he might not limp until some time afterwards.

Quote:His adrenalin must have been sky high when he jumped from the stage, and therefore if he felt no initial pain, he might not limp until some time afterwards.

Good point, Maddie!

We discussed this in class last night. There is a good possibility that he initially broke or fractured his leg in the jump from the box, landing awkwardly on the stage as was reported. Upon his getaway his mare could have fallen or thrown him and further injured his leg, rendering him totally incapacitated. We simply don't know. I'm sure his adrenalin was high - as anyone's would be and his ability to mount the skittish mare and ride away definitely point in this direction. In the 19th Century, riding styles, as I have previously point out, were different where the weight/balance of the rider was dependent almost solely on the lower legs and feet - not on the knees so much as today's riding style. In the Victorian era, one rode with most of the balance on the lower leg and foot so that yes, Booth would have been in considerable pain by the time he reached Dr Mudd's house. Whether or not his mare fell with him will continue to be debated.

Seems these guys had some clumsy horses - inasmuch as Powell's horse also fell and threw him as well!

(02-19-2013 08:08 AM)BettyO Wrote:  

Quote:His adrenalin must have been sky high when he jumped from the stage, and therefore if he felt no initial pain, he might not limp until some time afterwards.

Good point, Maddie!

We discussed this in class last night. There is a good possibility that he initially broke or fractured his leg in the jump from the box, landing awkwardly on the stage as was reported. Upon his getaway his mare could have fallen or thrown him and further injured his leg, rendering him totally incapacitated. We simply don't know. I'm sure his adrenalin was high - as anyone's would be and his ability to mount the skittish mare and ride away definitely point in this direction. In the 19th Century, riding styles, as I have previously point out, were different where the weight/balance of the rider was dependent almost solely on the lower legs and feet - not on the knees so much as today's riding style. In the Victorian era, one rode with most of the balance on the lower leg and foot so that yes, Booth would have been in considerable pain by the time he reached Dr Mudd's house. Whether or not his mare fell with him will continue to be debated.

Seems these guys had some clumsy horses - inasmuch as Powell's horse also fell and threw him as well!

Were horses shod in those days? I presume they were. I would imagine that they didn't look after them quite so well as we do now. I'm sure the owners looked after them as best they could, but 150 years ago I'm sure spavins, splints and laminitis wasn't treated as it is now. Perhaps it wouldn't have taken much for a horse to get lame in those days.

Quote:Were horses shod in those days? I presume they were. I would imagine that they didn't look after them quite so well as we do now. I'm sure the owners looked after them as best they could, but 150 years ago I'm sure spavins, splints and laminitis wasn't treated as it is now. Perhaps it wouldn't have taken much for a horse to get lame in those days.

Oh, yes - horses were certainly shod back in the Victorian era - farriers were just about everywhere! Remember that Lew Powell's dad, in addition to being a farmer, preacher and schoolmaster was also a farrier and had a small blacksmith shop! I'm sure Lew was familiar with this from a young age as well....

(02-19-2013 08:08 AM)BettyO Wrote:  

Quote:His adrenalin must have been sky high when he jumped from the stage, and therefore if he felt no initial pain, he might not limp until some time afterwards.

Good point, Maddie!

We discussed this in class last night. There is a good possibility that he initially broke or fractured his leg in the jump from the box, landing awkwardly on the stage as was reported. Upon his getaway his mare could have fallen or thrown him and further injured his leg, rendering him totally incapacitated. We simply don't know. I'm sure his adrenalin was high - as anyone's would be and his ability to mount the skittish mare and ride away definitely point in this direction. In the 19th Century, riding styles, as I have previously point out, were different where the weight/balance of the rider was dependent almost solely on the lower legs and feet - not on the knees so much as today's riding style. In the Victorian era, one rode with most of the balance on the lower leg and foot so that yes, Booth would have been in considerable pain by the time he reached Dr Mudd's house. Whether or not his mare fell with him will continue to be debated.

Seems these guys had some clumsy horses - inasmuch as Powell's horse also fell and threw him as well!

A one eyed horse would not have the same spatial judgement or perspectives, particularly in the dark. It would be bound to stumble or fall. I've always wondered what on earth Powell, who clearly knew his horse flesh, would have accepted a one eyed nag and a pacer to boot for his getaway vehicle. That's like trying to drive off in a Reliant Robin with a back wheel missing!

(02-19-2013 06:56 AM)MaddieM Wrote:  Couldn't he have done both... broken the bone initially jumping from the stage, and then aggravated it some more falling from a horse?

I guess it is possible but unlikely in my opinion. It is far more likely it was one or the other. I do agree that riding his horse and having the leg working in the dependent position over the next few hours greatly aggravated it.

(02-19-2013 10:16 AM)wsanto Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 06:56 AM)MaddieM Wrote:  Couldn't he have done both... broken the bone initially jumping from the stage, and then aggravated it some more falling from a horse?

I guess it is possible but unlikely in my opinion. It is far more likely it was one or the other. I do agree that riding his horse and having the leg working in the dependent position over the next few hours greatly aggravated it.

Do we know what type of fracture it was?

All I can say to all this speculation is read the presentation on Mike Kauffman's web site (ably kept by his wife Mary) at http://www.thedeathoflincoln.com/default.html

As a relative newcomer to the assassination compared to many of you, I really enjoy the questions and opinions regarding when Booth broke his leg. I know that some of you are weary of it, and I'm sure one day I will be too. But for the time being, I find myself wishing I knew exactly what was said and done at each step, down to the smallest detail, although I know this is just impossible. As far as when Booth broke his leg, I'm in the "leap to the stage" camp. I believe that the injury was aggravated during the escape, including a possible horse fall. But I just feel like the initial damage was done jumping to the stage. To me, many of the arguments of the horse fall theory are just kind of weak…

- They say nobody at the theater mentioned any kind of a limp. Well no kidding. Almost everybody in the theater had no idea what was going on…there's a man on stage brandishing a dagger, shouting something, crossing the stage and exiting the rear of the theater. Unless it was very obvious, I wouldn't expect anybody to notice. Do you really expect someone to say, "Oh, yeah, by the way, during those 10 seconds I happened to notice the guy had a slight limp"? Because I don't. Throw in the fact that by the time they were talking about it, the theatergoers knew Lincoln had been assassinated, and the trauma of that would likely have confused their minds, likely causing many of them to forget minor details. Also, keep in mind that the jump to the stage was not exactly a short one, it was done in haste, the spur got caught causing him to land awkwardly. That, to me, sounds like a fine recipe for an ankle/leg injury.

- They say he apparently mounted his horse with no problem. That may be true, but who can say for sure? He may have cringed in pain or cried out. How many witnesses were there? (Seriously, I'm asking, I'm not sure.) I know there was the guy who almost caught up to him (whose name I can't remember and don't feel like looking up), and there was Peanuts. There may have been others, I'm not sure. But how reliable are those accounts? It was dark, there was confusion. Were either of those guys really in a position to give a reliable account of how easy or difficult or painful it might have been for Booth to mount his horse? Additionally, as I've said before, I've played a lot of sports in my life, and I know for fact that you can play through all kinds of injuries when the adrenaline gets flowing. Booth's adrenaline would have been off the charts when he was making that initial getaway.

- They say that Booth appeared relaxed and pain free at the Navy Yard Bridge. Keep in mind that we're talking about a professional actor who was accustomed to performing under pressure. Throw in the fact that he was a very confident person to begin with, and also throw in the fact that his adrenaline level still would have been high, helping mask any pain that was there. Booth knew that getting across that bridge was a very big deal, and he would have been prepared to turn in a brilliant performance.

- They say that Booth and Herold told several people that Booth broke his leg from a horse fall. Okay, they also told several people his name was Boyd and that they were brothers and confederate soldiers returning home. Are those things also true? Let's not forget that fugitives on the run aren't generally above lying to aid their escape.

- They say Mudd's farmhand Thomas David said that the horse was lame. Okay, well it's not unreasonable to think that he might have lied. Maybe Mudd had some influence there.

- They say Booth's pants were muddy. Well was any other part of him muddy? If a man fell from a horse on a muddy dirt road, I would expect more of him to be muddy than his pants.

To me, these arguments, while believable, and just somewhat weak. I realize that the evidence for a jump from the box break is scant, but my gut just tells me that's the way it happened. Booth's diary stretches the truth, but he doesn't really make anything up. And as Laurie pointed out, the sequence of events regarding the attack and getaway are exactly in order. "In jumping broke my leg" can only mean one thing, and I believe that the jump to the stage is where the leg was broken. I may change my mind in the future, but for now that's what I believe.

All right, Jonathan, you want to go with your gut. Fair enough. Now let's go with my gut.

I am 71 years old. I have worked with horses and mules for 50 years as a wrangler, a mule skinner, and a trail repairman at the Grand Canyon, down in and on top along the rim. I have spent the last 35 years as a professional farrier. I have been run over, kicked, stomped on, had the leather of my boot stripped right off my foot, bitten, and been bucked off of some of the best stock this Arizona countryside has to offer. I have seen all sorts of wrecks (horse and mule accidents to you dudes), and been in many others. I am so stove up I can barely walk. I have had horseshoe nails drawn through my hands right down to the bone with the fat and tissue from my hand left deposited in my palm. My back has been jerked out so many times, it is a chiropractor's dream.

I will say that my gut tells me that Kauffman is correct. Read his website. Mike Kauffman and I disagree on a lot of things about Booth and the assassination, but there is on thing we agree on completely--Booth was an exaggerator (the guy who played him in Killing Lincoln the other night, or overplayed him according to some, had him down pat. He was a born prevaricator and exaggerator and a showman par excellence.

So, he jumped about 12 feet to the stage, was thrown off-balance and wrenched his back (I am an expert on that one!), mounted his horse (who nearly refused to be mounted and who Booth managed to pull to the left to be thrown into the saddle and nearly ran over Stewart who ran out of Ford's Theater to stop them), talked his way across the bridge at the Navy Yard, and fell with his horse on Sopers' Hill, thus suffering one of the most common rider's breaks in his leg, as Kauffman posits, where his companion Davy Herold found him and took him to Surrattsville and then Dr. Mudd's place to be treated.

Gut feeling to gut feeling, there you have it. One fabulist to another.

And so, I rest my case. We will never know the true facts - we are down to gut feelings. Too bad there weren't security cameras trained on the stage in 1865!

BTW: Just to clarify - Mike Kauffman's website is a creation of his wife drawn from his writings. Mike, to date, is not participating in it. He told me years ago that he preferred not to tangle with blog sites because invariably the posters will demand answers and then not agree with the answer you give them. I know that other authors feel the same way. After spending years and a great deal of money conducting research, it is quite frustrating to lay out the facts and have them ignored. They have a very good point.