On page 65 of Hanchett's book he stated that Booth was "...badly crippled by the leg he fractured in his jump to the stage.." He seems to be stating his opinion as a fact. Laurie, how can we keep him in high regard when he does something like that? There is no proof that Booth broke his leg when he jumped to the stage and no proof that he was badly crippled. Dr. Mudd said it was a minor break. At Dr. Mudd's, Booth was complaining about his aching back more than his leg.

Then on page 231 of the same book Hanchett says that, "So carelessly were they prepared, they even had Boyd's middle name wrong; it was Ward not William. (It's Hanchett that has it wrong.) He goes on to describe James Ward Boyd as blue-eyed, six feet two inches tall, with gray hair. (James William Boyd is described with red hair and having a similar build as that of Booth.) Hanchett also says that the picture most often used is of a man in a Union uniform and that Boyd was a Confederate and that it could not be Boyd. (James William Boyd was a Confederate spy. When going North, he would not wear his Confederate uniform.) James William Boyd is not the same person as James Ward Boyd and the only confusion is from people that read Hanchett's book.

Wsanto said, "We will all agree that it is a fact that Booth leapt from the box after the assassination and landed on the stage 12 feet below. By most accounts he landed awkwardly. I assume we can all agree that this is a way a person might break their fibula."

I can't agree, I need more information. I have heard that the stage was 8 feet, 10 feet, or 12 feet above the stage. Several sources have stated the floor of Lincoln's box is 8 feet above the stage. It seems it would be easy for someone to prove or disprove.
I also think that any broken bone would be from compression forces on the bone and it would result in splintering or a ragged fracture. Dr. Mudd said it was a straight break just above the ankle. During the war that kind of break was common when a soldier's horse stumbled and rolled over the soldier's leg.

I think most all authors concede that despite their best efforts errors creep into their books.

Personally I regard Dr. Hanchett's book as being the best there is at explaining and defusing so many of the misconceptions regarding the assassination. In my opinion Dr. Hanchett's work is the definitive book that puts to rest many of the myths regarding Abraham Lincoln's assassination. I realize the book was written 30 years ago, and Dr. Hanchett has since modified his position on the Confederate theory (he's now a proponent I believe), but I still feel it is the best book to read for anyone curious about all the theories that have been expounded over the years (IMO).

(09-08-2013 12:17 AM)Troy Cowan Wrote:  Wsanto said, "We will all agree that it is a fact that Booth leapt from the box after the assassination and landed on the stage 12 feet below. By most accounts he landed awkwardly. I assume we can all agree that this is a way a person might break their fibula."

I can't agree, I need more information. I have heard that the stage was 8 feet, 10 feet, or 12 feet above the stage. Several sources have stated the floor of Lincoln's box is 8 feet above the stage. It seems it would be easy for someone to prove or disprove.
I also think that any broken bone would be from compression forces on the bone and it would result in splintering or a ragged fracture. Dr. Mudd said it was a straight break just above the ankle. During the war that kind of break was common when a soldier's horse stumbled and rolled over the soldier's leg.

Troy,

Booth jumped over the railing which increased the distance he fell from the box. We know for a fact he did this. This fall might have resulted in no fracture or any number of injuries from a sprained ankle, to fibula fractures of all varieties to other potential injuries.

My point is that we know he dropped this distance and, by many accounts, landed awkwardly; therefore, with Booth having a broken leg and knowing this is a likely mechanism of injury to produce the type of broken fibula Booth suffered, it can not be discounted for another fiction that is being used to support another theory.

I've never heard anyone claim that Booth was complaining about his back more than his broken leg and I doubt this is true. Dr. Mudd did not treat Booth for an injured back but for the broken leg. Also Dr. Mudd did not have x-ray . He would not be able to tell if the fracture was traverse or straight across versus a spiral fracture from a simple physical exam. All he could say was that the fracture was simple (not an open fracture) and minor compared to other fractures.

On the other hand, IMO, there is no credible evidence of a horse fall. Booth and Herold told several folks that he broke his leg in a horse fall as part of their cover story during their escape. Herold continued this story to the gallows. None of this is proof of a horse fall as it all may have been a story concocted with the rest of their cover story.

There are no statements that I know of from Mudd's farmhand, John Davis, beside the one in "The Evidence". This statement does not describe the bay mare as injured. In fact he claims the mare was "in fine trim". He makes no remark with regard to the mare having a "badly swollen left shoulder" in this statement. Perhaps there is another statement but I have not seen it. I am not a researcher.

Harbin, Jones and George Mudd are all on the record that hey believe Booth broke his leg at Ford's. Harbin claims Booth reported this to him directly; Jones, intamely involved with Booth for several days in the pine thicket, reports it so in his book; and Mudd relates this as his belief during an interview with a reporter after the fact.

I understand that the horse fall is critical to your theory and to Jerry Madonna's theory and others i suppose but I don't see much evidence that his horse actually ever fell. It doesn't mean it didn't happen so it doesn't fully discount your theory or the others. But, in my opinion, it doesn't support them in any way either.

Troy,

I'm afraid that you have been on the outside looking in and adding claims that you cannot prove. I will only address the issue of "Boyd." I happened to have been on the inside when Mr. Boyd was thrown into the mess by mess-maker Ray Neff and his minions, Balsiger and Selig (or B.S. for short), in that ridiculous movie - and later book - on The Lincoln Conspiracy. The first showing of that in 1977(?) was given to a closed audience comprised of approximately 50-75 members of the Surratt Society and Mudd Society. It was laughable, and 99% of the audience, including me, advised them not to release it to the public. Much to the detriment of history, they ignored the suggestion.

Work began immediately to research the Boyd claim. Under the leadership of James O. Hall and his Baker Street Irregulars, coupled with support from the National Archives, the Library of Congress, university collections, and others, the research has continued into the 21st century. Nothing has been turned up. Since you are so certain of your statements about James WILLIAM Boyd, perhaps you would like to be hailed as the hero and SHOW US (NOT TELL US) THE DOCUMENTED PROOF THAT YOU HAVE to confirm your statements - and quoting Neff or Guttridge does not count as documented proof.

One more thing: If you need to know the height from the top of the railing on the President's Box to the stage at Ford's Theatre, just inquire with the National Park Service - or ask Jim Garrett of this forum, who happens to work at Ford's Theatre. Or, if you don't trust Jim, ask Mike Kauffman. The latter did not get permission to jump from the railing, but he did receive permission to set up a 12-foot stepladder and jump from it. Surratt House has a photograph of him in flight in our photographic archives.

While Mike is the one who began the debate over where the leg was broken, his leap has been discussed among several people who take into consideration that Mike was leaping from a standing position, whereas Booth was in motion as he reached the railing and jumped from a vaulting position. Mike had casual clothes on when he jumped - Booth may have been fettered by the cumbersome full clothing that he wore. Kauffman was not wearing high boots and spurs. He did not catch in a flag or chip an engraving's frame, both of which could throw off his balance upon landing. And, finally, Mike did not break his leg and attempt to run across the stage and mount a horse to see if it could be done.

I'd like to add one thing regarding the broken leg thing here. Last month, I had dinner with Mike Kauffman and we discussed his theory. Mike discussed how his original reason for bringing up the broken leg was not to create an ongoing debate or any such thing, but to dismiss the ridiculous claim of "The Revenge of Old Glory" which related that Booth caught his spur on the American flag, causing him to fall off balance on the stage and break his leg. As we know, this was the accepted story for many years. Taking a hard look at the period evidence though, Mike found that there was no substance to it at all and that the idea didn't even come about until years later. As he researched the broken leg idea more, he found the many mentions to Booth falling from his horse. He also discovered that the type of break Booth had was a very common equestrian injury from a horse fall. He believes that Booth's broken leg was caused by a fall from his horse, but he stated he has no problem if people disagree with him.

In truth, both theories stem from the words of Booth. In his diary he writes he broke his leg jumping, and to people on the escape route he states his horse fell on him. We'll never know which one it really was. Both have evidence to support them and, in any book on the subject, they both deserve equal press. It's like how we don't know the exact route Booth and Herold took from T.B. to Dr. Mudd's. We explain the two possibilities and then we just pick one to follow. To me, the same should be done when writing about Booth's broken leg.

Wsanto said, "I understand that the horse fall is critical to your theory and to Jerry Madonna's theory and others i suppose but I don't see much evidence that his horse actually ever fell. doesn't support them in any way either."

I would like to clear up the fact that it is not important to me when Booth broke his leg. The problem I have is when people state an opinion as a fact. No one knows when Booth broke his leg and people that state it as a fact, I find troublesome.

You go on to say: "There are no statements that I know of from Mudd's farmhand, John Davis, beside the one in "The Evidence". This statement does not describe the bay mare as injured. In fact he claims the mare was "in fine trim"."

I don't believe the horse Booth left the theatre with is the same horse that he had when he arrived at Dr. Mudd's. During the kidnapping plan, Booth had made arrangements to obtain fresh horses and he took advantage of obtaining fresh horses during his escape.

George W. Baird wrote, “I inquired of some boys (at the Surratt tavern) whom I found very communicative. One boy said that Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Griffith, Mr. Wylie and Mr. Lloyd were all out that night listening for the horses coming. That when the two men came, fresh horses were brought out of the stable, saddles transferred from the tired horses to the fresh, and the men rode on.”

Wsanto continued, " I've never heard anyone claim that Booth was complaining about his back more than his broken leg and I doubt this is true. Dr. Mudd did not treat Booth for an injured back but for the broken leg."

From Dr. Mudd's statement: "After they had knocked twice more I opened the door, but before doing so they told me they were two strangers on their way to Washington; that one of their horses had fallen by which one of the men had broken his leg. On opening the door I found two men. One on a horse led by the other man who had tied his horse to a tree nearby. I aided the man in getting off his horse and into the house, and laid him on the sofa in my parlor. After getting a light I assisted him in getting upstairs where there were two beds, one of which he took. He seemed to be very much injured in the back, and complained very much of it."

Laurie, if you don't know the distance from the floor of Lincoln's box to the stage, please don't add to the confusion. A number is all I need. For example: 8'3" .
Hanchett said he could prove that James William Boyd was really James Ward Boyd, but he didn't. He let the matter drop and he moved on. If proof is so easy, why are we on this forum?

Dave, I agree.

#1 - The only reference that I have ever seen to Booth's kidnapping plot having included getting fresh horses is in Smoot's book and says that he heard from Atzerodt that the fresh horses would come from a man named Hunt[t] in T.B. The only man named Hunt[t] in T.B. in 1864 or 1865 was my great-grandfather.

#2 - Please identify George Baird.

#3 - The resident of the Surrattsville area (about two miles south of the village) was named Walter Griffin, not Griffith.

#4 - There was no Wylie within the Surrattsville area (unless he was a coyote). Wasn't Judge Wylie a resident of D.C.?

#5 - I know the distance from the railing to the floor at Ford's Theatre. Go find it for yourself -- like good researchers do!

"In truth, both theories stem from the words of Booth. In his diary he writes he broke his leg jumping, and to people on the escape route he states his horse fell on him. We'll never know which one it really was. Both have evidence to support them and, in any book on the subject, they both deserve equal press. It's like how we don't know the exact route Booth and Herold took from T.B. to Dr. Mudd's. We explain the two possibilities and then we just pick one to follow. To me, the same should be done when writing about Booth's broken leg."

Dave - I agree completely about what you say above. My contention since about 2003 when Mike first told me about his theory of how the break occurred has been that the broken leg has very little bearing on the history of the assassination. I have been yelled at for saying that because others feel that Dr. Mudd would never have been involved or that Booth and Herold would have ridden right to the Potomac.

What I find a bit depressing is that a good portion of the people who read American Brutus or hear Mike lecture only remember that he has "gone against history" by "proving" that the broken leg was a result of his horse falling. Mike spent many years doing very thorough research, and I feel that his work should be remembered for that more than for the one theory that his horse fell on him.

(09-08-2013 01:20 PM)Troy Cowan Wrote:  Wsanto said, "I understand that the horse fall is critical to your theory and to Jerry Madonna's theory and others i suppose but I don't see much evidence that his horse actually ever fell. doesn't support them in any way either."

I would like to clear up the fact that it is not important to me when Booth broke his leg. The problem I have is when people state an opinion as a fact. No one knows when Booth broke his leg and people that state it as a fact, I find troublesome.

You go on to say: "There are no statements that I know of from Mudd's farmhand, John Davis, beside the one in "The Evidence". This statement does not describe the bay mare as injured. In fact he claims the mare was "in fine trim"."

I don't believe the horse Booth left the theatre with is the same horse that he had when he arrived at Dr. Mudd's. During the kidnapping plan, Booth had made arrangements to obtain fresh horses and he took advantage of obtaining fresh horses during his escape.

George W. Baird wrote, “I inquired of some boys (at the Surratt tavern) whom I found very communicative. One boy said that Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Griffith, Mr. Wylie and Mr. Lloyd were all out that night listening for the horses coming. That when the two men came, fresh horses were brought out of the stable, saddles transferred from the tired horses to the fresh, and the men rode on.”

Wsanto continued, " I've never heard anyone claim that Booth was complaining about his back more than his broken leg and I doubt this is true. Dr. Mudd did not treat Booth for an injured back but for the broken leg."

From Dr. Mudd's statement: "After they had knocked twice more I opened the door, but before doing so they told me they were two strangers on their way to Washington; that one of their horses had fallen by which one of the men had broken his leg. On opening the door I found two men. One on a horse led by the other man who had tied his horse to a tree nearby. I aided the man in getting off his horse and into the house, and laid him on the sofa in my parlor. After getting a light I assisted him in getting upstairs where there were two beds, one of which he took. He seemed to be very much injured in the back, and complained very much of it."

Laurie, if you don't know the distance from the floor of Lincoln's box to the stage, please don't add to the confusion. A number is all I need. For example: 8'3" .
Hanchett said he could prove that James William Boyd was really James Ward Boyd, but he didn't. He let the matter drop and he moved on. If proof is so easy, why are we on this forum?

Dave, I agree.

Troy,

I don't know for a fact that Booth broke his leg at Ford's. A lot of people that know a lot more than me seem convinced that he broke his leg in a hose fall.

I do know for a fact that Booth jumped from Lincoln's box to the stage. I do know it is a fact that Booth claimed he broke his leg at Ford's in his diary. Harbin and Jones and George Mudd are on the record that they believe Booth broke his leg in the leap.

I also know it is a fact that Samual Mudd was lying in his statements to investigators. Herold was too.

When i read quotes from Herold or Mudd or Atzerodt to support a new theory, I'm very suspicious and don't really give them any weight. Just as if I were a juror and it was a fact that a witness perjured themselves, I wouldn't believe any element of their testimony.

I understand that Booth may have injured his back as well as broke his fibula, but you claimed that Booth was more concerned about his back pain than the pain from his broken leg. That is simply not true in my opinion. Why didn't he say in his diary "when leaping broke my back"?

The horses are pretty well identified at Mudd's by Mudd's farmhand as the same horses that Booth and Herold were riding when they left Washington. It seems to me the description of the horse is the same from the stablemen to Cobb to Mudd's farmhand to Jone's book. I suppose they could be different horses with similar descriptions but I feel this is unlikely.

Most horse fall theories claim that the bay mare that Booth was riding fell somewhere near Soper's Hill and injured Booth while also injuring it's left shoulder. Herold caught up and they traded horses for the remainder of their escape until they ditched them in the swamp near the pine thicket per Jones' instruction. They rely on some statement from Mudd's farmhand that the bay mare was injured and, according to Kauffman, had "a badly swollen left shoulder" That is not in the statement in "The Evidence" and i have never had access to any other statements. That doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means that I have never had access to them.

So, it is my opinion, and certainly not a fact, that Booth broke his leg at Ford's. I do not see any good evidence to the contrary. So on this I disagree with Dave Taylor. I realize that he knows more about the assassination in his little finger than I will ever know. I might move off my position toward Dave's if someone could show me a statement from Mudd's farmhand that confirmed the bay mare had a left shoulder injury.

Didn't the hand state there was a flesh injury on the horse's left shoulder about the size of a silver dollar?

I believe that he described the small wound as being more towards the horse's inner chest??

Laurie wants to know:

1 - The only reference that I have ever seen to Booth's kidnapping plot having included getting fresh horses is in Smoot's book and says that he heard from Atzerodt that the fresh horses would come from a man named Hunt[t] in T.B. The only man named Hunt[t] in T.B. in 1864 or 1865 was my great-grandfather.

(So, now we know that your grandfather was part of the conspiracy to kidnap Lincoln? Laurie, no one has mentioned the name Hunt, why bring it up?)

#2 - Please identify George Baird.

(A twenty-two-year-old sailor serving at the Navy Yard. He went to school with David Herold and knew John Lloyd. After the assassination, he went to Surrattsville to see what he could find out. Much later he became Rear Admiral George W. Baird, USN.)


#3 - The resident of the Surrattsville area (about two miles south of the village) was named Walter Griffin, not Griffith. #4 - There was no Wylie within the Surrattsville area (unless he was a coyote). Wasn't Judge Wylie a resident of D.C.?

(I suppose you believe that all the people involved with the kidnapping of Lincoln were all local people and they left their names with authorities so researcher in the future would know of their involvement?)

#5 - I know the distance from the railing to the floor at Ford's Theatre. Go find it for yourself -- like good researchers do!

(That's right Laurie, if you have information, keep it to yourself and belittle others as often as you can.)

(I don't want to know the distance from the railing to the floor at Ford's theatre. That information could be misleading. I want to know the distance from the floor in Lincoln's box to the stage. If I lived in Washington and had a tape measure, it would be an easy thing to accomplish. As it is, I have to rely on others. Depending on who it is, I may not believe them unless they describe their method.)

(09-08-2013 06:22 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:  Didn't the hand state there was a flesh injury on the horse's left shoulder about the size of a silver dollar?

This is Thomas Davis' description of the horses in his statement in "The Evidence" He makes no other comment on the condition of the horses otherwise in this statement. (emphasis mine)

"One of the horses was a small bay mare in excellent trim, with a piece of skin off on the inside of the left foreleg about as big as a silver quarter. I do not know whether there was a soar {sic] on her head or not. The other was a roan horse, the pretty racker with a large scar just back of the saddle."

Sorry I was referring to him as John Davis in previous posts as I was having trouble remembering his first name.

Re: The distance Booth jumped from the presidential balcony.

Easy way to get an estimate for yourself: Get on Yahoo and search "distance Wilkes Booth jumped presidential balcony." After looking at several sites, on average it is claimed he jumped about eleven feet.
A blogger had interesting information on his site about the distance Booth jumped which I'll quote here:
Apparently, it depends on who is asked. Estimates of the distance range from seven to fourteen feet. Bryan notes that Laughlin gives fourteen feet. An eyewitness named Miss Chapman says “some ten feet.” Dr. Taft, another eyewitness, concludes that it was twelve feet. D.H. Bates reports it at “about seven.” A man very familiar with Ford’s Theater named W.J. Ferguson, settles on twelve feet-as Dr. Taft submits. Major Rathbone, in his affidavit, states “about ten or twelve feet.

Another easy way: Book shelf if you have books on the subject. They will often give an estimate.

Easiest way to get the information on a forum full of experts? Ask them nicely! Laurie, Jim G., etc. I do not know the distance measured at Ford's Theater from the presidential balcony railing to the stage. It seems to be "around eleven feet" from what I've read on various websites but I can't find anyone who has an actual measurement on the Internet. Now I know it's impossible to get a completely accurate measurement of how far Wilkes Booth jumped due to various factors such as his clothing, his momentum, etc. but I bet those of you who have measured it have a pretty decent idea of about how far it was about... will you please tell me what you guys know about measurements taken in the actual theater for an idea? I'd appreciate it!

Thanks!
Jenny

How far did Booth Jump? There is no sense measuring from the rail to the stage floor - he didn't drop straight down. We need to know, how far out on the stage did he hit. Also, we should include the height above the rail, when he reached the apex of the curve he traveled. I would say, without assurity, that it appears to be about 3/4 of one-half of a sine wave. Thus, we need to calculate the amplitude and frequency of the curve. Should we use his head as the measuring point? Don't use his hips, because they may have rotated during his flight, and would not be a pure sine wave. Let's get this right.