(11-26-2012 07:16 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I have had 5-6 medical doctors tell me that the fibula is not a weight-bearing bone in the leg and that Booth would have been able to mount with that leg in the stirrup.

Make that 7 medical doctors. The fibula is not a weight-bearing bone. The tibia bears one weight in normal circumstances. A simple fracture or buckle of the fibula would not prevent one from running out of Ford's and mounting a horse using the leg with the fractured fibula in the stirrup to lift and throw one's weight over the horse (especially if most of the weight was on the instep of the foot). The pain, probably similar to an ankle sprain, from the initial injury could easily be masked by adrenaline.

In my opinion, Booth may not have realized the severity of his injury until he was well past the Navy Bridge as his adrenaline waned and the swelling from the injury increased and started throbbing inside his boot. He was probably in a great deal of pain by the time he reached Surratt's Tavern.

Of course, this does not rule out other theories regarding this injury.

The OP's story of the minister that conducted his day after breaking his fibula in a ditch is a familiar story with this injury. And he didn't have adrenaline masking his symptoms.

(11-26-2012 07:16 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I have had 5-6 medical doctors tell me that the fibula is not a weight-bearing bone in the leg and that Booth would have been able to mount with that leg in the stirrup.

If that is true and he mounted the horse with a broken fibula with no problem - then why was he unable to dismount at Surratts Tavern? Why did he need assistance to dismount at Mudd's and most important - Why could he not mount a horse AFTER the fibula was fixed by Mudd?

If the fibula was not bearing weight then how could he have aggravated the injury sitting and riding a horse to such an extent that it crippled him?

If Booth did truly break his leg after leaping on to the stage at Ford's Theater, that gives a slightly different meaning to the traditional admonition to an actor to "break a leg."

(10-21-2012 05:18 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  It makes sense to me that Booth would stop at Mary's boarding house before making his escape.

I agree with Dr. Santo that the break could have happened at Ford's and with Jerry as quoted above. The forum was divided, but a number of us argued in favor of Bill Richter's theory that JWB stopped at the boardinghouse to pick up two pistols and a hat as he departed Washington.

Is it necessary to assume he dismounted there?

Maybe Mary handed him his stuff and off he went. If true, he might have been there all of 10-20 seconds if she were waiting for him (as possibly was planned at the 9:00 P.M. meeting and after Mary chased everyone to their rooms). Too much of a stretch?

Jerry,

I don't believe that there was any attempt to dismount at Surratt's Tavern because they did not intend to stay more than a few minutes - the time it woud take to get the weapon, a swig of whiskey, and the field glasses from Lloyd. He testified that they were there only about five minutes. Booth's broken leg had nothing to do with it.

By the time they arrived at Mudd's house, Booth had ridden about thirty miles on a galloping horse, his leg was undoubtedly swelling and being constrained within his boot, and it had been that way for about five hours. It makes sense to me that he would need help dismounting. I bet that even the uninjured Herold was stiff and sore by that time.

P.S. To "break a leg" was an old-time theatrical term for taking a bow.

It is possible, that at Surratt's Tavern, Booth thought the pain of dismounting and getting back on the horse was not worth the additional pain he would have to endure, so he stayed on the horse. Maybe by then the effects of the drink(s) he had just before he shot President Lincoln were starting to wear off.

About how long would it have taken him to travel from the Navy Yard bridge to Surratt's Tavern?

I'm cutting in here, so someone please answer Gene's question.

I worked at a stone company about 30 years ago and while moving a 100 lb. + rock, I lost my grip and it fell on my instep. It was very sore at first, but as it started to swell inside my laced boot, the pain increased. By the time I pulled the boot off, it swelled even more. Booth had to keep his boot on and if the swelling increased, as it undoubtedly did, I'm sure his pain increased. It must have been swollen terribly if Mudd had to cut the boot off several hours later.

The horse roll theory has some meat on it as does the jump story. The mud on the horses flank and it's injury lend a lot of credence to the horse roll and I think that's also what Lloyd was told, but it seems to be a toss up. Or both.

Assuming that he crossed the bridge about 10:45 pm or a tad earlier, we know from Lloyd's testimony that he arrived at Surratt's as the clock was striking midnight. He was making very good time (even with the horse falling) in covering about twelve miles in a little over an hour.

It then took him another four hours to go the approximately fourteen miles to Dr. Mudd's house - a sign to me that the fugitives slowed down to save their horses and perhaps because of the pain in Booth's leg.

Quote:If that is true and he mounted the horse with a broken fibula with no problem - then why was he unable to dismount at Surratts Tavern? Why did he need assistance to dismount at Mudd's and most important - Why could he not mount a horse AFTER the fibula was fixed by Mudd?

In my opinion, the pain from the acute injury would have likely been more like a sprained ankle or a bad bone bruise. This pain could have been masked by adrenaline as he made his initial escape.

As the swelling and throbbing increased in his boot (and this takes time), the pain would have become more like what we imagine a broken bone feels like. It would hurt much worse than an ankle sprain. The swelling would be greatly exagerrated by riding with the foot dependent and working in the stirrup over the next hour. The bone is still not weight-bearing and would not limit his dismount in a mechanical sense but the pain would make it unbearable to want to even attempt.

(11-27-2012 09:58 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Maybe by then the effects of the drink(s) he had just before he shot President Lincoln were starting to wear off.

Great point on the alcohol as well. Alcohol plus adrenaline, each, and in tandem, could really mask the pain from the initial injury.

About 2.5 years ago, I contributed a "State Your Case" point of view in favor of Booth breaking his leg after he crossed the river in to Maryland. For those interested, here's what I wrote:

Booth’s Diary Entry

History books tell us that John Wilkes Booth broke his leg while jumping from the balustrade of President Lincoln’s box to the stage at Ford’s Theatre. This is the most commonly held belief because John Wilkes Booth wrote that it happened that way. But should we take his word for it? A closer examination of his diary entry shows that he tried to paint a more daring and heroic image of himself during what he believed to be his crowning achievement.

John Wilkes Booth believed avenging the South by assassinating President Lincoln was a noble and great accomplishment. He was shocked at the “cold hand extended” to him by his fellow southern sympathizers and by the newspaper accounts of what he had done. His response to the criticism was written while hiding out during his escape.

“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 colonel 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”.

1. was stopped but pushed on – Booth was stopped briefly but “pushing on” meant being allowed immediate access after showing his calling card.
2. A colonel was at his side – Major Rathbone was the man who attempted to stop John Wilkes Booth from escaping, not a Colonel.
3. shouted Sic Semper before I fired – NOT ONE eyewitnesses heard John Wilkes Booth shout Sic Semper before he fired his pistol. The overwhelming majority didn’t hear him say anything until he had landed on the stage. The truth was, he shot President Lincoln from behind without warning.
4. rode sixty miles – the distance he rode was 30 miles.
5. with the bone of my leg tearing the flesh at every jump - The fracture JWB sustained was not a compound fracture but rather a clean break that did not puncture his skin nor tear at his flesh. While it was certainly a painful injury, Booth enhances his account by stating the flesh of his leg was being torn by the bone.

First Eyewitness Accounts

The first eyewitness accounts of Lincoln’s assassination are considered to be the most accurate as they were taken while still fresh in people’s memories. I have isolated the accounts focusing on Booth’s reaction after he jumped to the stage. 13 people described Booth as either running or rushing for the exit. Some even stated that he sprang to his feet after jumping to the stage. Others said he “came across the stage” or “fled behind the scenes”. NOT ONE PERSON MENTIONED HE LIMPED OR FAVORED HIS LEG AFTER JUMPING.

A.M.S Crawford – “I saw him as he RAN across the stage”
Harry Hawk – “as he was RUSHING towards me with a dagger”
James P. Ferguson – “as he came across the stage”
Basset – “RAN across the stage”
Edwin Bates – “RUSHED RAPIDLY across the stage”
Frederick A. Sawyer – “RAN with lightening speed across the stage” Jason S. Knox – “RUSHED across the stage”
Harry Hawk (letter to his parents) – “RAN towards me”
Helen DuBarry – “as he crossed the stage”
Julie Adeline Shepherd – “RUSHES through the scenery”
Spencer Bronson – “and RAPID left the stage”
Maj.Gen Butler – “RAN to the opposite side of the stage”
Charles Sabin Taft – “Springing quickly to his feet with the suppleness of an athlete” & “RAPID stage stride”
Samuel Koontz – “RUNNING across the stage”
John Downing Jr. – “striding across the stage”
G.B. Todd – “fled behind the scenes”
Sheldon P. McIntyre – “SPRANG to his feet”, “RAN across the stage”

Evidence of a Horse Accident

The first indication that John Wilkes Booth may have had an accident with his horse comes directly from Booth himself. Late in the afternoon of April 14th, John Wilkes Booth described his horse as a “bad little *****” that wouldn’t stand to be tied.
The last known person to speak with Booth before he crossed in to Maryland was Sgt. Silas T. Cobb. Sgt. Cobb was on guard duty at the Navy Yard Bridge connecting Washington D.C. to Maryland. Cobb questioned Booth before letting him pass on. He described Booth in detail and didn’t observe him to be in any pain or distress. He did however mention that Booth’s horse was “restive”. Restive is defined as resisting control or difficult to control.

Sgt. Cobb’s statement is important because everyone else who encountered Booth from that moment on mentioned that he was in a great deal of pain and suffering from an injured leg.
Below are three people who mentioned that Booth told them he injured his leg in a horse accident:

David Herold in a statement given to JAG John Bingham stated that Booth had told him he had broken his leg when “his horse had fallen or he was thrown off and his ankle sprained”.

John Lloyd, who leased the Surratt tavern swore that John Wilkes Booth “complained that he had broken his leg from his horse falling; seemed to be in great pain; did not dismount”.
Dr. Samuel Mudd swore in a statement to detectives that Herold and Booth had told him “one of their horses had fallen, by which one of the men had broken his leg”.

Thomas Davis, a farm hand for Dr. Mudd said the following of one of the horses: “she was lame in her left front leg, she was very lame before taken out of the stable and taken to water about 10 or 11 o’clock.

Medical Opinion

According to Mike Kauffman, Lincoln Assassination researcher and author of American Brutus:

“The National Library of Medicine keeps statistics on equestrian injuries, and according to them, the second most common injury occurs when a horse trips and rolls on its side. The rider is unable to get his foot out of the stirrup, and the girth of the horse presses outward on the lower leg, snapping the fibula straight across, just a couple of inches above the ankle. This is precisely the injury that Booth suffered, and I’ve found medical records of Civil War soldiers who suffered the same injury in the same way (Capt. James McCamly, for example). According to several doctors who offered their opinions on my tours, this kind of injury cannot happen from a leap. The pressure in such a case would be downward, and the fracture would not be transverse, but oblique.”
** The National Library no longer keeps these statistics.

According to Blaine Houmes, an Emergency Medical Doctor:

“I have seen people walk on a fractured fibula for 1-2 days before having it evaluated, but this is way, way not the norm as most are in immediate pain. I have also twice seen someone walking around with a broken hip, which would seem impossible. I think most people have also heard of instances where someone of superhuman strength lifted a car off an injured loved one, but that doesn't mean it's common.

Key points:
1) It would be virtually impossible with a fractured left ankle to mount a horse from the standard left side without further injury (quite possibly transforming a closed fracture into an open or compound fracture, due to the torsional forces.
2) Catching your ankle under a falling horse would easily satisfy criteria needed to break your ankle. I doubt Booth would have had time to react and pull his foot from the stirrup during a fall at full gallop, to prevent injury”.

John, you make some excellent points, and I'm not disagreeing with you, however....

I've known people who have fallen off, been thrown off, or had a horse fall on them. In the ones I have known, they have either had very minor injuries, like bruses and scrapes, or very serious injuries, broken ribs, pelvis, internal bleeding.
(I'm not a doctor, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express) If Booth fell or was thrown by a horse running and falling in the dark, he was real, real, real lucky that he only broke his leg. (especially if the horse fell on him) I think it would have been a much more serious break. And based on comments about the horse being "restive", IMO the horse most likely would have run away after the accident instead of hanging around. (unless the horse was seriusly stunned by the fall, or Booth was able to stay in the sadle-not likely) Horses are "skittish" animals.

Was there any mention of the horse being "lame" before they got to Mudd's? That could also account for why it took so long to go from Surratt's Tavern to Mudd's.
For me the discusion can go either way.

Just a quick question: Why would Booth lie about HOW he broke his leg to Lloyd when he flat out told him he killed the President ? There was no reason to hide the truth at this point.

I think Booth's written entries were his way of trying to paint his legacy in a glowing light. Newspapers didn't think too much of his act and he wanted to respond.

John, I love the way you presented your case.

(11-27-2012 06:08 PM)John E. Wrote:  Just a quick question: Why would Booth lie about HOW he broke his leg to Lloyd when he flat out told him he killed the President ? There was no reason to hide the truth at this point.

I think Booth's written entries were his way of trying to paint his legacy in a glowing light. Newspapers didn't think too much of his act and he wanted to respond.

I wish I knew
You've made some good points!

All the points that everyone has made (and will continue to make, no doubt) are good ones. However, it still goes back to my question of "What does it matter where he broke his leg?" Are we really so desperate for something to focus on that we have to keep rehashing something that will very likely never be proven?

Since I heard of the horse theory several years before Mr. Kauffman's book was published, I must admit to being saturated with the topic. I guess that's why I appear so grumpy about it to the rest of you.

I am much more interested in topics like: Who were the brains and money behind the original plot(s)? What role did the Canadian Cabinet play? Who were the New York Crowd? Who were the key players in Southern Maryland? Will we be able to identify all the players in the Secret Line that might have worked on the fringes of the plots? What about Jerry's theory on Johnson's involvement?

Those are some of the questions that I think deserve study and whose answers, if ever found, will have a much greater effect on understanding my favorite topic than worrying about a broken fibula.