Breaking a leg

[Rhatkinson]

(02-21-2013 08:56 AM)Rsmyth Wrote:  Roger, I agree 100 percent. The people involved in this disscussion have thought about the issue, looked at all the evidence and stated their case in a manner worthy of any lawyer. It may not be solved but it has been broken down to its finest points.

Hey! Don't insult us by comparing us to lawyers! (j/k, since I am a lawyer, I suppose that I shouldn't be offended.)

I'm in a strange profession where a few nudnicks ruin it for the rest of us. A law professor of mine had a great saying that I've always found to be true: everybody hates lawyers, but everyone loves their lawyer.

Heath

ps - Booth broke his leg at Ford's. (I just couldn't help myself....)

---

I actually wrote Mike Kauffman about his response to the Wood reports and his wife, Mary, was kind enough to ask Mike and respond to me with his reply. Here is what she sent me from Mike.

Thank you so much for your kind words about Mike's book. I am Mary, Mike's wife, and I am answering for him because it is my website. Mike is extremely busy with work and I told him I would create and maintain a database for him. I don't think he has even looked at it and he might be mortified if he did.

I did pass on your question to him tonight, and he answered that he really does not know how Wood came up with the idea that Booth was injured in Ford's Theatre. Wood knew about as much about what happened at Ford's as you or Mike. That is to say, he was not a witness to the event. Wood was in Cincinnati the night of the assassination. In the report of 4/23/1865, Wood also states it might be possible that Booth was hurt when his horse threw him. It sounds like Wood was just guessing about what had happened. Mike says it is interesting to note that Wood also thought Dr. Mudd was innocent, although people don't put a lot of stock in that statement.

Booth's "diary" is full of self-serving lies--Booth didn't move through thousands of Lincoln's friends, wasn't stopped, and, no matter where the bone was broken it was not tearing at his flesh. So, why do people choose to believe the ambiguous statement, "In jumping broke my leg?"

As I'm sure you've noticed, there simply isn't enough room in one book (Mike's book is about 1/3 of the original manuscript) or website to address every thought or piece of evidence. For example, the summary I put on Mike's website does not mention that Booth had complained to two people earlier on the day of the assassination that his horse was very difficult to manage. Booth saw himself as quite a horseman. I can't imagine that he would want to admit that he got hurt when the horse (and a female one at that) fell on him.

If you were investigating the assassination of a president, and witnesses testified that the killer had hurt himself in the commission of the crime, where would you focus your investigation? You would probably start your search with all the local hospitals and doctors. This is not what happened in the first few days of the search for Booth, and one must ask why. In fact, Lt. David Dana (who had been in Bryantown since Saturday) took no action when told by a local doctor that two men had stopped at the home of his cousin, Dr. Samuel Mudd, on the morning after the assassination. It was only when he reported this information to Lt. Alexander Lovett on April 18, that the matter was investigated. The only reasonable explanation I can think of for Dana's behavior is that Dana had no idea he was looking for an injured man. This is just a nugget of information, but it goes to a bigger picture.

I think if people were looking at where Booth broke his leg in a vacuum, instead of from the perspective that Booth broke his leg when jumping from the Presidential Box, I wonder if they would draw a different conclusion given the information we have.

I don't know how much you know about Mike, so, pardon me if I bore you. In the 1980s, Mike started putting all the information in the National Archives assassination file into a database. For example: After making thousands upon thousands on entries, he was amazed with the results. When he searched on a specific item, such as a date, he would often find something new. For example, If he searched on a date Booth told someone he had been in Washington, he often found that John Surratt and other conspirators had been in Washington, too! He was amazed at what the computer sorted out for him. So, when Mike searched on every statement regarding Booth's broken leg, he found no witnesses who indicated Booth had broken his leg on the stage.

The thing I think is important about the broken leg theory is that for 150 years everyone had taken the statement that Booth had broken his leg on the stage at face value. No one had looked into the eyewitness statements, or at least had not paid enough attention to what they said to question where Booth broke his leg. That is what impresses me about my husband's research: it is meticulous.

Did you see Killing Lincoln last night? If so, did you notice they used Mike's broken leg theory (even though Hanks says that conventional history has Booth breaking his leg on the stage)? I was very excited that Mike's theory has been noticed by those other than in the assassination field. Mike had an opportunity to meet members of the production staff, including the director and producer, who told them they loved American Brutus and it influenced decisions they made about the movie.

Thanks, again, for writing.

All the best,

Mary

I thought it was very kind of Mary and Mike to take the time to respond. I do disagree with her about Wood "believing Dr. Mudd". His report sure sounds like the exact opposite to me. While we all may disagree (good naturedly), it is enjoyable to read differing points of view.

Heath