Rhatkinson. your post #91. This reply is very late, but each reply is based on our own analysis of the events discussed. ("We scratch our own itch"). Surratt did not get an assignment on Apr. 14. because he was not available. Booth and Surratt met after their failed attempt to abduct Lincoln - March 17 (+/-). From there on, Booth and Surratt never saw each other again - NEVER. The next day Booth went to NY. On March 25, Surratt went to Richmond, w/ Slater. April 2, Surratt headed for Montreal, w/ Slater. April 6/8 Surratt went to Elmira, w/ Slater. Surratt did not know there was to be an Assassination.
So, he did not betray anyone. He was "on duty", elsewhere. IMO if he had known, he would have been in D.C. It is apparent to me, that he headed North on April 15th, to report his findings to E.G. Lee. He made his way to Montreal by April 18, w/ Slater. Check the St. Lawrence Register for April 18, 1865. The signature, just below his , is "A. Reynaud". (Slater's mother's maiden name) Both names are in the same handwriting. (Which I believe is Rev. Cameron's). L.C. Baker got e report of the train trip from his Detectives, and tells us about it in his "Hist. of the U. S. Sec. Serv." Surratt was I.D'd several times along the train ride, but not Slater. She was in disguise.
(I wish I had studied this hard, when I was in School.)

(08-07-2013 05:28 PM)SSlater Wrote:  John. I agree with your evaluation of who should be executed. A person Murdered and a person Executed are two entirely different things. Let me ask, is your reference to the 6 or 7 escaped prisoners the same incident where Sarah Slater asked "Shall we kill them?" - and did. I can't fault her, or the others involved here, Slater lived in a Prisoner-of-War town (Salisbury, N.C.) and I'm certain that it had been drilled into the citizens of Salisbury, that if you see escaped prisoners - shoot them. By merely asking about their fate, she was giving them a trial. Was this a time to kill? Was it within the rules? Was there any other choice? etc. I can not condemn her, or Surratt, or whomever pulled the trigger. I need more evidence. As for the telegrapher, what was he saying on he wire. Was he calling in artillery fire? Was he signaling an attack? etc. Those were instantaneous decisions, fully justified. Yes, there are situations where Killings are in order.
But don't mix "executions/killings" and "murders". There is a time when "it is your duty".
There is more to all of this, than we can solve in a internet exchange.
My explanation for a "High Mass" is - Surratt had been a seminarian. That was a "Special Club" that got special considerations - even when trying to escape from prosecution. (Know what I mean?). "High" mass, "Low" mass - no difference, when it comes to the effect of prayers. It's supposed to be an Honor -especially for the family. In my grade school days - we thought of it as "a thicker asbestos suit". (Know what I mean?)

SSlater:

Recognizing that war is hell, that the black flag was raised even before the war began (with the murder of Lovejoy, in "Bleeding Kansas" and in the Missouri border wars), and that there were depredations and atrocities on both sides, I nevertheless say that there are Laws of War (the Lieber Code) and that murdering emaciated and starving and almost certainly unarmed escaped POW's, in cold blood, is a violation of those laws. It is no longer justified killing, i.e. in combat; it is murder and should subject the offender(s) to the sentence and penalty that apply for murder in the jurisdiction in which it occurs. There can be no justification for it. Surratt, Slater, et al, should have ignored them and gone on their way. That they did not, but chose, instead, murder of helpless human beings, tells us a great deal about them, and what it tells us is that they were much more than couriers. The POW's were not, and could not have been, a threat to their safety. According to McMillan, it was Slater who told the others (there were four or five others traveling with them, according to McMillan, who was told the story by Surratt) to kill the POW's. As for the telegrapher, I will grant that under the circumstances, summary execution may have been the only remedy they had, i.e. it would have been wholly impractical to take him prisoner.

John

(08-08-2013 03:06 PM)GARY POPOLO Wrote:  I think I read were Spanger once released from jail spent the remainer of his life living with Dr. Mudd. Interesting!

(08-08-2013 06:50 PM)L Verge Wrote:  As for Spangler and Mudd, I don't believe that Spangler went immediately to live with the Mudds. He eventually did, however, and the family found him literally up a tree on their property, having been chased there by the family's dogs.

Gary and Laurie, I sure agree with you two folks that there is confusion in the literature regarding Spangler's 1869-1875 whereabouts. Over the years, in a variety of books, I have read the following:

1. Spangler returned to work for John Ford from 1869-1873 and then went to live at Dr. Mudd's until his death in 1875.

2. Spangler spent the entire 1869-1875 period with the Mudds.

3. Spangler worked at several theaters between Baltimore and Richmond from 1869-1871, and then went to live with the Mudds in 1871.

Regarding Spangler's whereabouts during the 1869-1875 period, Mike Kauffman writes that Spangler worked at the Holliday Street Theatre in Baltimore from 1869-1873 before going to live at Dr. Mudd's house after the theater burned down.

On the other hand Ed Steers writes, "It seems certain that Spangler made his way to the Mudd farm soon after his release arriving in the spring of 1869 and staying for approximately 6 years, not eighteen months." Ed discounts Nettie Mudd's statement that Spangler died eighteen months after arriving at the Mudd farm. Ed writes, "Had Spangler lived and worked elsewhere between April 1869 and February 1875 some record of his existence would have been discovered."

Is there a definitive answer on this? I do not know.

(08-08-2013 09:36 PM)SSlater Wrote:  Rhatkinson. your post #91. This reply is very late, but each reply is based on our own analysis of the events discussed. ("We scratch our own itch"). Surratt did not get an assignment on Apr. 14. because he was not available. Booth and Surratt met after their failed attempt to abduct Lincoln - March 17 (+/-). From there on, Booth and Surratt never saw each other again - NEVER. The next day Booth went to NY. On March 25, Surratt went to Richmond, w/ Slater. April 2, Surratt headed for Montreal, w/ Slater. April 6/8 Surratt went to Elmira, w/ Slater. Surratt did not know there was to be an Assassination.
So, he did not betray anyone. He was "on duty", elsewhere. IMO if he had known, he would have been in D.C. It is apparent to me, that he headed North on April 15th, to report his findings to E.G. Lee. He made his way to Montreal by April 18, w/ Slater. Check the St. Lawrence Register for April 18, 1865. The signature, just below his , is "A. Reynaud". (Slater's mother's maiden name) Both names are in the same handwriting. (Which I believe is Rev. Cameron's). L.C. Baker got e report of the train trip from his Detectives, and tells us about it in his "Hist. of the U. S. Sec. Serv." Surratt was I.D'd several times along the train ride, but not Slater. She was in disguise.
(I wish I had studied this hard, when I was in School.)

SSlater:

I hope you do not mind my responding to your post to Rhatkinson. I am certain he or she is perfectly capable of responding, but you have raised some interesting points that I would like to address too.

To begin with, I believe some of your dates are off a bit, though I welcome correction. My understanding is that Booth did not leave for New York, after the Campbell Hospital episode, until 3-21, joining Powell, who was already there, having left Washington immediately, with a stop in Baltimore. Yes, Surratt met Slater in New York and they went to Richmond together, in the company of four or five others, arriving there on 3-31. (Trial of JHS, V. 1, p 467; Weichmann, p. 432) (Being in New York at the same time Booth was, would you not expect them to have met there?) They left Richmond on Saturday morning, 4-1, and arrived in Washington on 4-3. They left Washington on Monday morning, 4-4 (Weichmann, p. 433) They stopped in N.Y. to see Booth (what for, if he was no longer conspiring with him?), but was told he was in Boston for an engagement. (Weichmann, pp. 432, 433). They arrived in Montreal on 4-6. He was still there at the beginning of the week (4-9 or 4-10). If we are to believe him, at a time when the Confederacy was collapsing, evacuated on 4-2, occupied on 4-3, toured by Lincoln and Tad on 4-4, and with what was left of the government moving south toward the Savannah River, and with decapitation of the Federal Government by multiple assassinations the last hope of the Confederacy, he undertook a 1,200 mile journey (round-trip) to deliver to General Edwin Lee, on behalf of Judah Benjamin (who had previously masterminded a year's worth of terror plots) dispatches relating to "accounts of money transactions". He then soaked up the sights in this cosmopolitan Canadian city for a few days, while the Confederacy continued to sink like a stone, until, on 4-10, he received a "letter" (probably a telegram) from Booth, telling him that their plans had changed and to return to Washington forthwith. (Trial of JHS, V. 1, pp. 471, 476) Asked by McMillan what he did in response to the communication from Booth, he said he left "immediately" for Washington. But, he said, in a story that has three radically different versions (McMillan, Rockville lecture and Hanson Hiss), he didn't go to Washington (why not?); he went to Elmira, about a week after arriving in Montreal (4-13?), arriving in Elmira on 4-12??? His purpose, he said, was to make sketches of the prison there for General E. Lee, which he did. What happened to Booth's imperative re Washington??? He doesn't say. He does say, however, that he telegraphed Booth in New York to determine whether or not he had left for Washington yet, being advised that in fact he had. Why should he be doing this if he was no longer conspiring? In Hanson Hiss, however, he said he went to Elmira pursuant to orders from Gen. Wilder, not Gen. Lee, and that he stayed for "several weeks", not two or three days. Then he says he learned about Lincoln's assassination, either in Elmira, St. Albans or en route between Elmira and Albany--take your pick. Then he says he wanted to go to Baltimore to find out the "particulars of the tragedy", but finding no train to go south to Baltimore, decided to go north about 60 to 75 miles to Canandaigua, but he doesn't say what for --presumably to soak up some more scenery, while the Confederacy continued to sink. He does say, however, that he intended to go from Canandaigua to Baltimore via Elmira!!!! Why, for God's sake, did he not just wait for a train in Elmira? While in Elmira, in between sketching sessions, he calmly patronized haberdashers and tailors, while the Confederacy continued to slide away. Does any of this make sense to anybody?

Before answering that question, consider some evidence on the other side. Ste. Marie swore that he said, when he was safely away from Federal detectives and American jurisdiction, that "We have killed Lincoln, the *****'s friend". He also swore on the stand, at the trial, that Surratt told him he left Washington on the night of 4-14 or the morning of 4-15, disguised as an Englishman. Take that with a little salt, because Ste. Marie said in his Affidavit that Surratt told him that at the time of the assassination, he was "in New York prepared to fly as soon as the deed was done", which is why Pierrepont all but threw him away as a witness. But even that isn't much better, from the standpoint of culpability. Ste. Marie added that Surratt told him that they (he and Booth) had acted under orders of men who are not yet known, some of whom are still in N.Y. and others in London, and, further, that they had acted under the instructions of persons under the immediate orders of Davis. Does all this sound like someone who would traipse around New York state buying shirts when bloody work was being done in Washington? McMillan also said that Surratt told him that he and Booth had spent $10,000 on the conspiracy. That's $140,000 in today's money. Where on earth did this unemployed son of a boardinghouse keeper and his unemployed actor friend get $140,000?

If you believe that Surratt was only involved in a kidnapping scheme, consider that:

1. Arnold said he passed up many kidnapping opportunities in favor of a life of dissipation. (Arnold, Memoirs, pp. 45, 46)
2. The Jack Cade affair was a big nothing.
3. The Campbell Hospital episode was almost certainly staged. So believes Kauffman. So, too, believed Arnold, who said it was so demented and foolhardy that "we concluded that it was done to try the nerve of his (Booth's) associates". I agree.
4. Does anyone really believe that Davis, Benjamin, Seddon, Breckenridge, the Canadian Cabinet and the Secret Service were all persuaded that this 26-year old actor's kidnapping idea was brilliant and would save the Confederacy? What would they have done in the face of Northern stonewalling? Chopped off Lincoln's limbs? One at a time, pending the release of more Confederate POW's? Pulled out his fingernails?
5. ALL of the letters introduced at the trial (Hudspeth, Morehead City, Lon) spoke of assassination. None spoke of kidnapping.
6. In the entire corpus of testimony at the trial from Montgomery, Dunham (Conover) and Merritt, there is ONE reference to "abduction", but DOZENS of references to decapitation by multiple assassinations. Does anyone suppose that the Confederacy's top courier between Richmond and the Canadian Cabinet could have been ignorant of this fact? I already know about their perjury. That is a separate story; it in no way vitiates the sheer volume of testimony re assassinations.
7.If Booth and Surratt were intent on kidnapping, why did Booth urge Powell, on THREE occasions, to shoot Lincoln?
8. How were the kidnappers going to get Lincoln across the Navy Yard Bridge? "Shoot the sentinel"? At which point the detail would be alerted as well as the sentinels on the other side of the bridge.
9. Prisoner exchange was already being accomplished, which Arnold threw in Booth's face.
10. The Meadville etching and Mrs. McClermont's testimony at the trial (of Surratt) prove that Booth (and therefore Surratt) had murder in mind as early as April, 1864, if not earlier.
11. Atzerodt's May 1 confession states that Booth (and therefore Surratt) feared that the N.Y. crowd would "get the Presdt. certain" or "get him quick" if he didn't do it first. Does anyone read in these words anything about kidnapping?
12. Thomas Harris, Louis Weichmann and John Bingham all believed that "kidnapping" was a cover, that there never was serious intention to do it.
13. If the Confederacy intended to kidnap, how is it that at least a half dozen attempts were made on Lincoln's life from the middle of 1863 to April, 1865 (Mary's accident, the fire, the shot, Blackburn's shirts and the River Queen incident). Were these all rogue operations? Or maybe someone miscommunicated. Or maybe there was no intention to kidnap, but only to kill. Which is the most reasonable explanation?
14. If Booth was intent on kidnapping, why did he try to assassinate the President on Inauguration Day? Or are we to believe that he intended to kidnap him then too, presumably by throwing him over his shoulder and then marching through 30,000 spectators, half the Union army, the N.D.P. and the Capitol Police?

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

John

John,

Please don't take offense when I say this, but "taking the time to read this" is not the problem - finding the time to digest it all and respond to some of your suppositions is the biggest problem! If your manuscript is of similar length as your postings, I think you will have to do a lot of editing and careful condensing. Anything that even comes close to the magnitude of your verbiage will likely turn off any publisher. That is my personal opinion, and I am really trying to be helpful.

That said, I have several thoughts - in random order. I believe that kidnapping was a viable thought to the Maryland planters and Judah Benjamin until the fall of Richmond. I also believe that assassination was always Plan B in their minds as well as Booth's.

As for Surratt's role? The murder plan did not require his assistance, but the transfer of Confederate prisoners and - most importantly - the Confederate treasury to Canada did. He was obeying Confederate orders at that point, not Booth's order. Surratt traveled around the northwestern portion of New York State during that time soliciting assistance from Copperhead units in that area. He had to know that there was a possibility of his cover being blown and Union forces descending upon him. The Copperheads, no doubt, had secret lines of their own in upstate New York.

In item #13 above, you mention the variety of incidents that you are ASSUMING to be assassination attempts. I might give credence to the shot en route to Soldiers' Home and the yellow fever-infected shirts. I don't think you can prove the other three assertions.

The idea of kidnapping Lincoln might be explained as a means to create chaos in the Union and pull necessary troops from key points in order to search for the captive President?

As for Ste. Marie, other than his being a stool pigeon, I write him off as being another jerk who wanted money.

I am not even going to attempt to tackle your first paragraph because it is a run-on gone wild. Create at least four separate paragraphs out of it, and I might attempt to understand it.

I apologize for sounding like your 10th grade English teacher, but your tendency to post these very long position papers reminds me quite well that you are a lawyer and trained to throw words at defendants so fast and furious that they end up in a state of confusion. It's working with this old lady...

John I. (I'm going to call you I, and I'll be John II - Like Pope John the second - now a Saint.) You are a Lawyer through and through. You are entertaining, as well as informative and constructive. You do your home work. But, your Lawyer side is too dominant. Such as: If you don't know the answer - don't ask the question. On the other hand - if there is no answer, ask it, then don't ask what they are thinking - tell them what they are thinking. That's a good lawyer. I hope you never prosecute me or I'm dead.
You say murdering emaciated and almost certainly unarmed escapees. You are posturing for the jury. Very effective. You say MURDERING, I say punitive reaction. You say unarmed. I say no visible conventional weapons. If they have two hands (one is essential) - they are a threat. These guys are criminals. They were in a pen surrounded by armed guards, who should have should have shot before they got this far. They should have stayed where they were safe. These are escaped POW's, still in enemy territory. They may not be a big threat to 4 or 5 well-armed, well-fed, Rebels on a hand-cart, but they are a threat to a lone widow, or a small sickly male, who just put his supper of one rotten apple, on the table. (Did the Jury like that?)
"The Laws of War". I've never read the whole book, but I can remember my own training. Example: If you are bringing in a prisoner or two, and you are getting sleepy - ready to collapse - you cannot risk tieing them up and go to sleep - NO, Shoot them!. That scenario was approved by the US Gov. and the Pope. (That part was important to me.) As trainees, we drove the Chaplain crazy, with our "Desert Island " Stories. (Suppose we are on a desert island, and there is this girl ........) This was War, and we wanted to be ready. (PS. Yes, you can marry her, even if there is no Clergy present) (That was a relief, to know).
I can't answer some questions, I wasn't there. (I.ve dropped the desert Island scenario). I can't answer others because, there is no answer. If I can't answer, it doesn't make the question a good one. The best I can do is tell you something I read. Errors, in any report, are apt to appear, when the teller is resorting to exaggeration, or suppression - depending on the effect they are trying to create.
(We can't agree on the date that the "Failed Abduction" occurred. March 17th, no, the 19th, no the 20th, maybe. So What! it happened.
PS. Surratt could not have been in Elmira for several weeks, we know where he was on April 6, and the 18th. (with lots of travel in between).

We need a ."Superior Judge", who has a list of ALL approved information, and has authority to edit all our ravings. Say, Betty O?
Laurie is full up with extra duties.

(08-09-2013 01:06 PM)L Verge Wrote:  John,

Please don't take offense when I say this, but "taking the time to read this" is not the problem - finding the time to digest it all and respond to some of your suppositions is the biggest problem! If your manuscript is of similar length as your postings, I think you will have to do a lot of editing and careful condensing. Anything that even comes close to the magnitude of your verbiage will likely turn off any publisher. That is my personal opinion, and I am really trying to be helpful.

That said, I have several thoughts - in random order. I believe that kidnapping was a viable thought to the Maryland planters and Judah Benjamin until the fall of Richmond. I also believe that assassination was always Plan B in their minds as well as Booth's.

As for Surratt's role? The murder plan did not require his assistance, but the transfer of Confederate prisoners and - most importantly - the Confederate treasury to Canada did. He was obeying Confederate orders at that point, not Booth's order. Surratt traveled around the northwestern portion of New York State during that time soliciting assistance from Copperhead units in that area. He had to know that there was a possibility of his cover being blown and Union forces descending upon him. The Copperheads, no doubt, had secret lines of their own in upstate New York.

In item #13 above, you mention the variety of incidents that you are ASSUMING to be assassination attempts. I might give credence to the shot en route to Soldiers' Home and the yellow fever-infected shirts. I don't think you can prove the other three assertions.

The idea of kidnapping Lincoln might be explained as a means to create chaos in the Union and pull necessary troops from key points in order to search for the captive President?

As for Ste. Marie, other than his being a stool pigeon, I write him off as being another jerk who wanted money.

I am not even going to attempt to tackle your first paragraph because it is a run-on gone wild. Create at least four separate paragraphs out of it, and I might attempt to understand it.

I apologize for sounding like your 10th grade English teacher, but your tendency to post these very long position papers reminds me quite well that you are a lawyer and trained to throw words at defendants so fast and furious that they end up in a state of confusion. It's working with this old lady...

Laurie:

Thank you for the constructive criticism. I knew it was too long even as I was writing it, but I wanted to make my points comprehensively. I have done so, and henceforth all my posts, therefore, will be brief. As for the manuscript, Linda and I have spent the last three months abridging it, for the very reason you gave: the publisher said it was too long.

John

(08-09-2013 05:00 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 01:06 PM)L Verge Wrote:  John,

Please don't take offense when I say this, but "taking the time to read this" is not the problem - finding the time to digest it all and respond to some of your suppositions is the biggest problem! If your manuscript is of similar length as your postings, I think you will have to do a lot of editing and careful condensing. Anything that even comes close to the magnitude of your verbiage will likely turn off any publisher. That is my personal opinion, and I am really trying to be helpful.

That said, I have several thoughts - in random order. I believe that kidnapping was a viable thought to the Maryland planters and Judah Benjamin until the fall of Richmond. I also believe that assassination was always Plan B in their minds as well as Booth's.

As for Surratt's role? The murder plan did not require his assistance, but the transfer of Confederate prisoners and - most importantly - the Confederate treasury to Canada did. He was obeying Confederate orders at that point, not Booth's order. Surratt traveled around the northwestern portion of New York State during that time soliciting assistance from Copperhead units in that area. He had to know that there was a possibility of his cover being blown and Union forces descending upon him. The Copperheads, no doubt, had secret lines of their own in upstate New York.

In item #13 above, you mention the variety of incidents that you are ASSUMING to be assassination attempts. I might give credence to the shot en route to Soldiers' Home and the yellow fever-infected shirts. I don't think you can prove the other three assertions.

The idea of kidnapping Lincoln might be explained as a means to create chaos in the Union and pull necessary troops from key points in order to search for the captive President?

As for Ste. Marie, other than his being a stool pigeon, I write him off as being another jerk who wanted money.

I am not even going to attempt to tackle your first paragraph because it is a run-on gone wild. Create at least four separate paragraphs out of it, and I might attempt to understand it.

I apologize for sounding like your 10th grade English teacher, but your tendency to post these very long position papers reminds me quite well that you are a lawyer and trained to throw words at defendants so fast and furious that they end up in a state of confusion. It's working with this old lady...

Laurie:

Thank you for the constructive criticism. I knew it was too long even as I was writing it, but I wanted to make my points comprehensively. I have done so, and henceforth all my posts, therefore, will be brief. As for the manuscript, Linda and I have spent the last three months abridging it, for the very reason you gave: the publisher said it was too long.

John

John I. Whatever you take out of your writings, send them to me. I'm sure there will be some gems, that are considered superfluous, to others. John II

John I - If it's any consolation, every legitimate author that I have known on this subject has had to do major rewrites and condensing to satisfy publishers (and I do feel that publishers know what the buying public's tolerance level is on numbers of pages they have to read).

Mike Kauffman comes to mind because he snuck many of his ideas past the publisher by taking them out of the main text and inserting them (again condensed) into the chapter notes at the end of American Brutus. The only drawback that I see with this method is that probably 50% of the audience doesn't read and absorb chapter notes because they float outside the main flow of the text and aren't retained as well. I actually resorted to reading the book and then going back and reading just the chapter notes and taking the extended ones as little vignettes in their own right.

The chapter notes in American Brutus are nearly as good as the chapters. It's the ideal book for your Kindle or ipad as you can quickly click to the notes.

John, thanks for your posts; they are very interesting.

Heath

I know what you mean....I'm going through the SAME THING now with my publisher.... "cut it down" - and it's taking me ions to pick and choose - but yes, that's a great idea - putting it into notes. Footnotes are the FIRST thing I go through in a book - I find them juicy and to me, it's like getting two books in one! A book without good notes to me is useless....

John Fazio said,

"I don't know who told Wood about Booth's broken leg, but recall that there were about 1,700 people in the theater and that a lot of them recorded that Booth had broken a leg ("limped", "bull frog", etc.) I believe he broke it when he fell to the stage. The horse business was a cover story. The evidence is strong. He knew a lot of people had witnessed it, which is why he would not lie in his diary, which would have destroyed his credibility".

John, I have been looking for years if anyone present at Ford's Theatre on April 14, 1865, said Booth limped across the stage. I have found none. Maybe you could present some. I have found dozens of statement of people at the Theatre that Booth ran off the stage. For example:


A witness to Booth’s jump, Frederick A. Sawyer, said, “He ran with lightning speed across the stage” .

James B. Stewart testified that “he was at the theater on the night of the assassination, and saw the assassin leap from the box, and made an effort to stop him from running across the stage. Stewart continued,

When I got out of the door I perceived a man mounting a horse. He was at that instant barely mounted. The moon was just beginning to rise, and I could see him better. The horse was moving in a circle as though prematurely spurred in mounting. I ran in the direction to which the horse was heading at about eight or ten feet from the head of the horse, and the rider brought him around to the right again. The horse’s feet were rattling violently on the stones. I crossed in the same direction, and was soon on the right hand side of the horse, but he was gaining on me. When about two-thirds of the way out of the alley, he brought the horse forward and swept to the left of F Street. I commanded him to stop. It all occupied but two seconds.
Source: Lincoln, Davis, and Booth: Family Secrets

Both Booth and Herold said Booth's horse stumbled and fell with Booth on the horse. When they reached Loyd's home, Booth's horse had a bloody knee and Booth had a broken leg and mud on his pants.

Troy, I try to read all the posts on the forum, and I do not recall John Fazio ever saying this. Could you please post the URL of the page you are quoting from? Thanks. If this is an accurate quote of John's then please move your post to the proper thread. If not, I will delete it.

I would also like to suggest that we have discussed the issue of the broken leg ad nauseum and that most of us have read Tim Good's collection of eyewitness accounts as well as Mr. Kauffman's assessment of the situation. Can we just move on?

P.S. It was at Mudd's house (not Lloyd's/Surratt's) that the horse's injury was discovered, and I believe it was referred to as more of a scratch on the upper portion than a full bloody knee.

Roger said, "Troy, I try to read all the posts on the forum, and I do not recall John Fazio ever saying this. Could you please post the URL of the page you are quoting from? Thanks. If this is an accurate quote of John's then please move your post to the proper thread. If not, I will delete it".

Roger, My quote came from post #76 on this thread. It is located at the second paragraph from the bottom. I am sorry that I don't know the proper thread to make my comments. Because my response is to something on this thread, I felt it belongs on this thread. Correct me if I am wrong.


L Verge said, "I would also like to suggest that we have discussed the issue of the broken leg ad nauseum and that most of us have read Tim Good's collection of eyewitness accounts as well as Mr. Kauffman's assessment of the situation. Can we just move on?

P.S. It was at Mudd's house (not Lloyd's/Surratt's) that the horse's injury was discovered, and I believe it was referred to as more of a scratch on the upper portion than a full bloody knee".


Laurie, I said nothing about when the injury was discovered. I was simply indicating where the injury occurred. It did not occur at the theatre, but between the Navy Yard bridge and Lloyd's house. If you or John Fazio have a statement from a witness at the theatre saying that Booth injured his leg during the jump off the balcony, I would be very interested.