Found this early this morning in the New York Herald for April 28, 1865 -- confirmation that JWB's horse fell on him in his flight - of course the broken leg is not described accurately....but - still interesting!

Had not yet seen this in a period newspaper report.....

Could this have come from David Herold's April 27th statement? Was Herold's statement aboard the Montauk released to the newspapers? In that statement Herold said Booth told him the injury happened when his horse fell or had been thrown off.

"at the identical hour the President died"
Wasn't he at Mudd's house in bed?

It could very well have been taken from Herold's Statement.....I would have thought that Herold was there when the horse fell - unless it happened after they met up on Good Hope Hill.....

(06-26-2013 07:09 AM)BettyO Wrote:  Found this early this morning in the New York Herald for April 28, 1865 -- confirmation that JWB's horse fell on him in his flight - of course the broken leg is not described accurately....but - still interesting!

Had not yet seen this in a period newspaper report.....

It is certainly not "confirmation" that his horse fell on him. I still doubt it very much. But it is interesting that this story, whether true or not, was reported and believed, at least, by this particular journalist.

When were the contents of Booth's diary made public? History, for the most part, had decided that he broke his leg in the leap until Kauffman challenged this belief. I wonder if this report was prior to the diary being made public and I wonder how much the diary changed historical opinions on the subject.

I didn't mean that it was CONCRETE confirmation of Booths horse falling with/on him, but just confirmation that the theory existed at the time. We'll never know....

Sorry I worded that badly....

According to Herold's very confusing statement (a game of "How much can I confuse these Feds?"), he met Mr. Booth about seven or eight miles from Washington - which would be in the vicinity of Soper's Hill. Herold claimed that he was heading into Washington and that Booth was heading out of the city. Booth invited him to ride along into the country with him.

"When I refused to go, he insisted upon it two or three times, saying that his horse had fallen or he was thrown off, and his ankle sprained." This statement was made on April 27, so it is very evident that the newspapers could have run the story the next day.

Since the rest of Herold's statement is so rambling and confusing, it gives us little reason to say definitely that Booth's horse fell on him. And Davey was certainly smart enough not to say, "Oh yes, Booth had a broken ankle from his leap onto the stage at Ford's that night!"

(06-27-2013 11:39 AM)wsanto Wrote:  When were the contents of Booth's diary made public? History, for the most part, had decided that he broke his leg in the leap until Kauffman challenged this belief. I wonder if this report was prior to the diary being made public and I wonder how much the diary changed historical opinions on the subject.

1867 - During the pre-hearings for the Johnson impeachment. 'Beast' Butler demanded to know Who spoileth that book?

I can seem him spitting that question out.... hopefully, from the back row .

---

Talk about bad luck - break your leg on the stage AND THEN have a horse fall on you.

I love your last sentence, Jerry, and I think all future books should include it -- and yes, I am being serious!

(06-27-2013 08:28 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 11:39 AM)wsanto Wrote:  When were the contents of Booth's diary made public?

1867 - During the pre-hearings for the Johnson impeachment. 'Beast' Butler demanded to know Who spoileth that book?

I can seem him spitting that question out.... hopefully, from the back row .

---

Talk about bad luck - break your leg on the stage AND THEN have a horse fall on you.

Thanks Jerry.

While doing an amateur on-line search of Booth's broken leg I stumbled upon a news account of Booth's capture and demise at Garrett's farm in a New York paper (I recall it being the Times but I am not certain). In the article it was reported, as a matter of fact, that Booth broke his leg during the leap to the stage.

If the contents of the diary were not public knowledge at the time, I wonder how this particular reporter came to that particular conclusion when the NY Herald came to another conclusion as per Betty's find.

I suppose they may have interviewed Conger, who had knowledge of the contents of the diary, and he passed on Booth's written claim.

---

Here is a link to a Philadelphia Inquirer article on the capture of Booth from Apr. 28th, 1965

http://www.newsinhistory.com/blog/lincol...-shot-dead

It includes a great description of Booth's remains and includes a statement about the broken leg occurring at Ford's and not, as previously reported, by a horse fall on his escape.

(06-27-2013 02:00 PM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  According to Herold's very confusing statement (a game of "How much can I confuse these Feds?"), he met Mr. Booth about seven or eight miles from Washington - which would be in the vicinity of Soper's Hill. Herold claimed that he was heading into Washington and that Booth was heading out of the city. Booth invited him to ride along into the country with him.

"When I refused to go, he insisted upon it two or three times, saying that his horse had fallen or he was thrown off, and his ankle sprained." This statement was made on April 27, so it is very evident that the newspapers could have run the story the next day.

Since the rest of Herold's statement is so rambling and confusing, it gives us little reason to say definitely that Booth's horse fell on him. And Davey was certainly smart enough not to say, "Oh yes, Booth had a broken ankle from his leap onto the stage at Ford's that night!"

This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me skeptical about the horse fall theory. Herold made this claim while he was in the middle of trying to lie his way out of a hanging? Really??

Here are a series of newspaper accounts of the capture and death of Booth. It includes the one I mentioned earlier from the NY Times.

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

Where's an orthopedic surgeon when you need one? Would a doctor be able to distinguish between a fracture caused by a downward leap from a high point and one produced by a horse rolling (crushing) on the leg? I doubt that Dr. Mudd would be able to tell, but what about Surgeon-General Barnes?

(06-30-2013 07:22 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Where's an orthopedic surgeon when you need one? Would a doctor be able to distinguish between a fracture caused by a downward leap from a high point and one produced by a horse rolling (crushing) on the leg? I doubt that Dr. Mudd would be able to tell, but what about Surgeon-General Barnes?

Highly unlikely. Not in 1865, not today.

Laurie,

An orthopedic surgeon would use x-rays to determine the type of fracture present and then apply those findings to the "mechanism of injury", that is--what forces were involved to produce the particular injury.

Physical exam can locate the fracture and possibly the stability of the bone but, without an x-ray, it would be nearly impossible to determine the exact type and shape (transverse, spiral, etc) of a fractue someone suffered in a closed orthopedic injury. The only other way to definately determine the type of fracture present would be by exposing the fracture in surgery or autoupsy.

Mr. Kauffman claims Booth's fibula was broken in a straight line perpendicular to the long axis of the bone (transverse) just above the ankle. I don't know his source for this since there were no x-rays and the bone was not exposed during autopsy (at least to my knowledge). He goes on to explain that this type of fracture is what you would expect from the force of having the weight of a horse trapping a foot with the ground during a fall. He goes on to explain that a transverse fibula fracture above the ankle was a very common fracture during the Civil War. He surmises, based on his interview with an orthopedic surgeon, that a leap fracture would be spiral in nature. It is much more complicated than that since the combination of the various possible vectors of the forces and the various potential positions of the foot at contact could cause any number of shapes, sizes and types of fibula fracture (including a transverse fracture).

It is my understanding that at the time one had a simple fracture (closed) or a complicated fracture (open-or having the bone breaking through the skin). Booth's fracture was clearly simple in that regard. Mudd did not seem to regard it as a severe fracture based on his physical exam.