On the night of July 14th, 1881, Sheriff Pat Garrett gunned down Billy the Kid. Or did he? Why, after all this time, is there still so much confusion surrounding the alleged death of William H.
Bonney? Is it true that Pat Garrett’s own deputies said that he killed the wrong man? Why did Sheriff Garrett bury the body without letting anyone get a good look at it?
What was he trying to hide? And why the hell was there not a photograph taken? If Garrett really did 𝓀𝒾𝓁𝓁 the kid, then why didn’t he receive the reward money?
While we’re asking questions, just who was this Billy Barlo character, and what was that all about? And who was Brushy Bill Roberts? Did Brushy Bill really have all the same scars as Billy the Kid?
Wasn’t there a photo comparison study conducted by the FBI that showed Brushy and Billy were a 93% match? We’re going to discuss all of this and more as we finally clear up a few misconceptions concerning one of the greatest history hoaxes of all time. My name’s Danny Shane Gillis McBride, and this is the Wild West Extravaganza.
Pat Garrett never received the reward for killing Billy the Kid because he couldn’t prove that the kid was dead. No photo, no body, no proof, no reward, right? Well, you may find this hard to believe, but everything you just heard is 100% false.
Matter of fact, not only did Garrett receive that bounty on the kid’s head, but he received it twice. If you’ll recall, back on December 23rd, 1880, Sheriff Garrett arrested Billy the Kid over at Stinking Springs. Skip ahead a few weeks later, and per the January 13th, 1881 edition of the Las Vegas Gazette, Garrett was paid the official $500 reward that Governor Wallace had offered for Billy the Kid, and a lot more to boot.
Thanks to grateful citizens, Pat ended up walking away with around $1,000 bucks. Then, of course, the kid escaped and Garrett tracked him down again, killing him on the night of July 14th, 1881. Although the second reward was delayed, Garrett did ultimately collect it.
As to why it took so long, it wasn’t because Pat couldn’t prove that he killed Billy. The delay in payment was purely bureaucratic and based on technicalities. Well, actually two technicalities.
The wording of the notice, as placed in prominent newspapers by Governor Lew Wallace, read as follows: “Billy the Kid $500 reward. I will pay $500 to any person or persons who will capture William Bonney, Alias the Kid, and deliver him to any Sheriff of New Mexico. Satisfactory proof of identity will be required.”
It was signed Lew Wallace, Governor of New Mexico. As you can see right off the bat, the first issue is that Garrett killed the kid rather than capturing him. This did prove to be just a minor issue, as all seemed to agree that Pat had no other choice.
Even the Governor of New Mexico, Lionel Sheldon, stated that Garrett could not technically comply with the terms of the reward because when he met the kid in Maxwell’s room, it was very certain that one or the other would be killed. It was not a reward, the payment of which depended on conviction. The kid had been convicted and was under sentence to be hanged.
Garrett was in pursuit with an intention to capture if it could be done normally, but under the circumstances of their meeting, capture was out of the question. Those are the exact words of Governor Sheldon.
The second and biggest issue had to do with whether or not the reward was a personal offer from former Governor Lou Wallace. If so, was the territory of New Mexico still bound to make good on it? Wallace had placed the notice on December 22nd, 1880.
He then resigned as Governor less than five months later, on May 5th 1881, before the kid even met his demise. Wallace wasn’t even in New Mexico when Billy was killed. On July 21st, 1881, just mere days after the kid’s death, the Santa Fe Daily reported that Acting Governor Rich announced that he was willing to pay the amount and would be glad to do so, but that he would have to look at the records first.
And by records, I don’t mean proof of the kid’s death. Essentially, he just needed to determine whether or not Lou Wallace had made it an official reward on record with the territorial government.
Rich consulted with the District Attorney, William Breeden. According to Breeden, the reward was indeed a private offer since Wallace had never bothered to file it on record. Breeden said that it certainly appeared to be the personal offer of Governor Wallace and that he did nothing to indicate that it was intended as an executive act on behalf of the territory.
If the reward should be paid, it is very probable that the legislature would approve the payment if so desired and that no objection would be raised. However, if Governor Rich should now direct the payment of the claim, he would doubtlessly expose himself to the charge of misappropriating territorial funds. In other words, the governor just couldn’t take money from the territorial coffers as he pleased.
There had to be a legitimate reason for it, and it was up to the legislators to approve that reason. According to Rich, they would do so during the next legislative assembly.
Sure enough, when the legislators met in February of 1882, they unanimously voted for Garrett to receive the reward. They even stated explicitly that the delay was caused by a what they called a technicality. This was followed up by them proclaiming that Pat did 𝓀𝒾𝓁𝓁 Billy the Kid and that he was entitled to the $500 reward.
Just like before, Garrett ended up getting far more than just that 500 bucks. Thanks to the grateful citizens of New Mexico, in total, he came away with several thousand dollars. So yeah, I have no idea where the rumor that Garrett never got the reward comes from, but it is patently and provably false.
Be that as it may, that certainly is not the only misconception out there concerning Billy the Kid. Sadly, much of what people think they know about the kid is often based on misinformation, rumors, or just flat out made up stories. They get repeated as fact, and before long, these falsehoods are so ingrained into the narrative that they’re almost universally believed.
That’s mostly why I decided to make this episode, to hopefully clear things up a bit. I know not everybody has time to read the books or to take a real deep dive into the subject matter, but I do find myself answering the same questions on a daily basis, and a lot of these questions are stemming from misinformation. The type of misinformation that lends credence to guys like Brushy Bill Roberts.
Ah, yes. My old friend Brushy Bill. Just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back.
Now, it’s my opinion that most people who entertain the idea of Brushy Bill Roberts and Billy the Kid being the same person are just simply misinformed at no fault of their own. They’re not stupid or gullible or anything like that. They just hear all the stories about Billy’s death, most of which are untrue, and they start thinking that maybe there was something fishy involved.
Maybe there was a big cover-up, and Garrett didn’t really 𝓀𝒾𝓁𝓁 Billy the Kid after all. Then they hear all the stories about Brushy, all the so-called evidence, and things start to add up. I don’t blame anyone for buying into it at face value.
It seems very believable at least until you dig into the evidence. But unfortunately, as I mentioned a moment ago, most people haven’t taken the time to really study the material and verify what’s true and what’s false. Once again, this is nobody’s fault.
We all can’t be experts in everything, right? Unless this is your job or just a hobby that you’re extremely passionate about, there’s no way you’re going to spend countless hours studying a bunch of boring old news articles and primary sources. However, should you actually take a gander at the historical records, look at those primary sources and firsthand eyewitness accounts, many of which I will be shining a light on today, then you’ll soon understand that it’s really all much to do about nothing.
There’s another great example. You’ll often hear that one of Pat Garrett’s own deputies claimed that Garrett killed the wrong man. Huge, if true, I mean you got to admit that does sound pretty suspect, right?
And yeah, the truth is just moments after Pat Garrett allegedly gunned down the kid, Deputy John Poe did indeed tell Pat “you shot the wrong man.” Like I said, pretty damning, right? The only problem is this quote has been completely taken out of context by people who frankly should know better.
The statement in question comes directly from Poe’s book. The Death of Billy the Kid. Quote, “An instant later Garrett came out brushing against me as he passed, he stood by me close to the wall at the side of the door and said to me, that was the kid that came in there onto me, and I think I have got him.
I said, Pat, the kid would not have come to this place. You shot the wrong man.” If that was all there was to, then I’d agree that it would certainly cast a little doubt as to who Garrett killed.
But all you got to do is just keep on reading that the next part of his account. Two paragraphs later, Poe writes that, after some forceful persuasion, they got Maxwell to procure a light. He finally brought an old-fashioned tallow candle from his mother’s room at the far end of the building.
They placed the candle on the window sill, which allowed them to look inside and see a man lying stretched upon his back, dead in the middle of the room, with a six-shooter lying at his right hand and a butcher knife at his left. Upon examining the body, they found it to be that of Billy the Kid.
Obviously, once you take the statement in full, it’s very clear that Poe was initially describing his emotions at the moment. The disbelief, the confusion that naturally comes from being mere feet away from a deadly shooting. Then he goes right on to state in no uncertain terms that, yeah, the man Garrett killed was in all actuality Billy the Kid.
The title of his book is literally “The Death of Billy the Kid.” You see what I’m saying, right? Most people aren’t 𝓮𝔁𝓹𝓸𝓼𝓮𝓭 to the full text.
They just hear that one little snippet, and all of a sudden, the idea that Garrett killed the wrong man isn’t so hard to believe. Couple that with the false information on Pat not receiving that reward, and things really begin to add up. From there, it just sort of snowballs.
So what are some other misconceptions? How about the false claims that Garrett and his deputies immediately buried the kid, or whoever they killed, before anyone got a good look at the body? This is also verifiably and patently not true.
Billy was killed sometime either late at night on July 14th or shortly after midnight on the morning of the 15th inside Pete Maxwell’s room. It wasn’t until later on the next day that he was finally buried. He lay there on the floor as Pat and the deputies fortified themselves inside, worried about some of the outlaw’s buddies trying to avenge his death.
When the attack never came, Garrett sent for the local Justice of the Peace, Alejandro Segura. Upon arrival, Segura formed a six-man coroner’s jury headed up by local businessman and former politician Milnor Rudolph. After investigating the killing and speaking with the only eyewitness to the actual shooting, Pete Maxwell, the jury issued a finding which described how Billy was killed and who killed him.
They unanimously found that William Bonnie was killed by a bullet in the left breast in the region of the heart, fired from a pistol in the hand of Pat F. Garrett.
By the way, we know they saw the kid’s body because Segura noted that the coroner’s jury proceeded to a room in said house where they found the body of William Bonnie, alias the Kid. And yes, the men of the jury all knew Billy the Kid personally. What’s more, they were not the only ones who saw the kid’s body, far from it.
Keep in mind that Pete Maxwell did not live alone. His mother, his siblings, and even Paulita Maxwell all heard the shot and came to investigate. Another resident of Fort Sumner, Paco Anaya, also came to see what was causing all the ruckus, and he would later write about what he saw at the Maxwell home, including naming several other eyewitnesses.
According to Paco, it was Paulita Maxwell who dressed Billy for the funeral.
Another eyewitness, Jesus Silva, described the burial. He stated that at 10 o’clock, they buried Billy the Kid in the little cemetery near the old fort, beside the bodies of Charlie Bowdre and Tom O’Follard. Silva was one of the main pallbearers at Billy’s funeral that morning.
Along with him were Segura, Zabel Guiterrez, Ciente Otero, and a few others. The kid was placed in a grave that had been dug by Vicente Otero. You see how these witnesses are starting to stack up.
The records identify over two dozen people by name who all agreed that Garrett killed the kid. These were people who were at Fort Sumner at the time of the killing. Some of these witnesses helped to carry the body out of Maxwell’s room, others prepared him for burial, while still others dug the grave.
And that’s just the people we know by name.
According to the aforementioned Paulita Maxwell, nearly everyone who lived at Fort Sumner attended the funeral. I don’t have the exact number in front of me, but if I’m not mistaken, there were close to 200 people living at the fort in 1880. Even lowballing it, I think it’s safe to say that at least 100 people were in attendance.
It was likely more, as Pietro Maxwell would state that practically every man, woman, and child in town followed the body to the little cemetery. So no, Pat Garrett did not stop anyone from seeing the body, and he didn’t bury the kid before anyone could get a good look at him. Pat didn’t bury Billy the Kids at all.
That duty fell to the residents of Fort Sumner, many of whom lived for for decades after Billy was killed. They were interviewed quite a bit over the years by journalists and historians, and not a single one of them ever hinted at the idea that Garrett killed the wrong man or that Billy escaped.
You’ll often hear that the coroner’s jury report was faked or that it never even existed, and that’s not true either. The day of Billy’s funeral, Pat wrote a letter to Santa Fe that included a copy of the report that he received from Alejandro Segura. Both the letter and report were then published in the July 23rd, 1881 edition of the Los Cruces Real Grand Republican.
You can read it for yourself if you want. As for the original coroner’s jury report, per protocol, it was sent to the District Attorney of the First Judicial District of the Territory of New Mexico. Years later, when the original was compared against the copy that Pat sent to Santa Fe, they matched up perfectly.
As you can see, we don’t just have to take Pat Garrett’s word for it. For a more unbiased account, you can always read the account of a private George Miller, who was also at Fort Sumner when Billy was killed. He gave his story in the July 18th, 1881 issue of the Las Vegas Daily.
Then there’s Milnor Rudolph, the head of that coroner’s jury. He gave his own personal account of what he witnessed, which was published in the Las Vegas Daily Gazette.
Milner wasn’t just some backwoods nobody. He was a former politician and a highly respected businessman. He was also a Santa Fe Ring man, so the idea of him lying to cover up Billy’s escape really isn’t all that believable.
His son Charles gave an account as well. Charles Rudolph knew about Billy, and he was even part of the posse that arrested him back at Stinking Springs. Charles wrote about what he witnessed there at Fort Sumner in his personal journal, which was later printed.
So there’s the witness own words. And we can add to that the well-known story of John Bird, a friend of Billy’s, who was with him on the night he was captured, and who also was at the Fort when the kid was killed. He never disputed the official story.
Then there’s Joselé Silva and his son, Jesus Hernandez Silva. Jesus even helped to remove the body from Maxwell’s house and assisted in digging the grave. His dad, Jose, served on the coroner’s jury.
Both men knew Billy the Kid very well, and Jesus’ firsthand account would ultimately be published in the July 13th, 1938 edition of the Clovis News Journal. Indeed, as Silva lived long enough to look into the 𝒻𝒶𝓀𝑒 claims of rogue impersonators, and was confident that his friend Billy was among the dead. Another member of the coroner’s jury was Zabel Gutierrez.
Now, despite being related to Pat by marriage, Zabel had been very close to Billy, although I’m not sure how much of this was out of fear or loyalty. One version of the kid’s final moments has him relaxing at the Gutierrez home, before good thing Selsa and asking him to get some meat in he goes to fetch. Speaking of Selsa, she was the one who gave Billy a butcher knife that he carried with him.
A knife that Deputy Poe would later return to her Selsa’s son, Candido, would sign an affidavit years later swearing that he saw Billy that evening. Could hold. Ursula Baca was just nine years old at that time, but she too, would sign an affidavit years later, stating that she attended the funeral.
Genio Garcia was another witness. He assisted in dressing the kid after the women cleaned the body. There’s also Mike Costro, who was the superintendent of the U.
S. something, and was there at Fort Sumner on business. Mike gave his account in person just a few days later at the US Capital, and that account can be found in the archives of the Las Vegas Daily Gazette.
I’m not going to sit here and name everybody who was an eyewitness, but I think you’re starting to get the picture. I will leave a link to an article from the Billy the Kid Historical Coalition that names even more people, as well as a comprehensive report compiled by historian Dr. Richard Ulmer that goes really in-depth as far as eyewitnesses are concerned.
I just want to be as clear as possible that this is not just us taking Garrett’s word for it, because it isn’t. You may not care much for Pat Garrett. You may think that he was a terrible person or a liar.
But regardless, his claim is simple and his claim is supported by the recollections of people who were there. No single person who was at Fort Sumner would ever come forth and claim the entire thing was a hoax or that Billy the Kid escaped.
It’s also worth mentioning that in the years following, when Pat Garrett was running for office or when he was up for a presidential appointment, he encountered a good deal of opposition. The press smeared him as a drunk and an atheist, and even dragged his wife’s name through the mud, but they never once tried to claim that Garrett didn’t 𝓀𝒾𝓁𝓁 Billy.
Now, some will ask, “If Garrett really killed the Kid, why wasn’t a photograph taken?” I get that we’ve been conditioned to believe that taking photos of dead criminals was far more common than it actually was. We’ve all seen pictures of dead outlaws, like Jesse James, but when you stop and think about it, how many of those photographs exist?
There aren’t that many, maybe like 15, maybe 20, at best. There were thousands of criminals who roamed the Wild West, and many of them we don’t have any photo of, not even while, much less dead. Yes, some dead outlaws were posed and photographed, but they were a very small minority.
So one, this idea that photography was common after a shooting is not true. It did happen, but just wasn’t as common as people assume.
Two, there was no photographer living at Fort Sumner at the time of the kid’s death. At least according to the 1880 census. The only photographic image we have of the kid, the famous tintype, was taken at Fort Sumner in 1880, but the photographer was a traveling tradesman.
For Garrett to depart the fort to find a photographer would have been at least a five day round trip. A lot can happen in that amount of time. And by the time he returned, he wouldn’t have had a body to photograph anyway.
In the summer heat, the body would have been worthless to wait. Many people tell me that Pat needed a photo to provide proof that he had killed Billy, but we’ve already established that he had jurisdiction in the eye. He had proof from the coroner’s jury and the people of the fort.
This was considered sufficient proof by the authorities. They literally gave Garrett the reward, and you can read the discussion about it in official records. No one ever questioned or doubted that Garrett had killed Billy.
And besides, if there were any doubt, they could have just uncovered the grave and checked the body themselves. So no, a photograph was absolutely not necessary.
Some have said that a photograph would have confirmed Garrett’s story, but this really wouldn’t have been the case. Even if there was a photograph, the exclusion of a photograph is not proof of a hoax. For example, a famous photograph of America’s most wanted criminal Jesse James exists.
Yet there are still people who believe that James lived to be an old man. Unless you’re a consummate conspiracy theorist, and then no amount of proof is ever going to convince you otherwise. But this episode is not aimed at them.
This is for the majority of open-minded people.
Let’s delve into the details of the kid’s appearance at the time of his death. You may have heard this already, but there were reports that Billy’s skin was stained dark, almost as if he was trying to pass himself as a Mexican. Also, he had allegedly grown a beard or was just in progress.
This is often pointed out as proof that Garrett killed the wrong man. Some sources claim that a man named Billy Barlo was the one buried at Fort Sumner instead.
Where does this rumor originate from? The earliest you can find appears to be in the July 19th edition of the Las Vegas Daily Gazette, according to which Billy had allowed his beard to grow and attempted to make it. Some Colorado Springs papers also ran a similar story a few days later, on July 23rd.
They stated that the kid had recently been going about disguised as a Mexican. In that same timeframe, the Las Cruise Republican ran a story that he was letting his hair and beard grow and was putting skin through a coloring process he hoped would completely Mexicanize him. Later, in his story.
But there is no way to confirm these claims. The papers do not cite their sources, and the fact of the matter is that they got plenty of details eye wrong. For instance, the same issue claims that Billy was 21 and he had killed his first man over an insult to his mother.
This isn’t true. And the paper even misspelled his name as “McCarty” instead of “McCarthy.”
These are minor errors, but they show that not every word in the news articles is correct. It’s always good to compare and contrast. And it’s worth using the facts against the rumors.
Also worth noting that none of the witnesses claim that Billy’s skin was stained or that he had grown a beard. And it’s highly possible he let his hair grow out. Maybe he was in a disguise.
Many fugitives do that, and Billy was a fugitive. But that doesn’t mean he did a full-on transformation.
Then there is the mysterious Billy Barlo lot. This comes from one single ruffle, Brushy Bill. The claim has zero basis in historical fact.
There was no one by that name living at Fort Sumner. No one had ever heard of the name. no one in the 1880s, according to all records.
He is the sole source of this entire person.
There is a misconception that Pat Garrett would never have killed Billy the Kid because they were friends. Why would Garrett betray his friend? Maybe he had second thoughts and let him.
First of all, there is a historical basis for Garrett and Billy being friends, but this relationship is often downplayed. The evidence that they were pretty good friends is there. But let me smash another misconception by pointing out that Garrett never rode with the Kid.
Young Guns got that part wrong. They made it look as if they were pals on the wrong side of the law, but that’s not the case. Pat Garrett, at the point, was a lawman.
He was not one of Billy’s. They had a nice association, but that was the extent of it. And the point is, why would this prevent Garrett from killing him?
I probably don’t have to go too far to explain that people sometimes 𝓀𝒾𝓁𝓁 their friends. I can imagine that type of behavior happens. and no doubt, people have changed their mind and have betrayed their friends.
This is something that can happen, especially when there’s a reward and an official position on the line. The friendship is not a compelling argument that Garrett would never have taken the shot.
And another ridiculous claim that I hear too often is that Billy was too smart to fall to a “stupid” Pat Garrett. This ignores the fact that Garrett had already captured Billy before. Back in late 1880, just after the bounty was placed, Garrett and a posse set an ambush for Billy.
He was coming to the Fort without much, and Garrett almost got him. And at Stinking Springs, Garrett used a bit of strategy to force Billy to surrender. He spotted him out and guns, and captured him, Caesar say.
Garrett certainly had the ability to track a kid down. Billy was not some superhuman, tactical genius. He was smart, and could write beautiful letters, but he wasn’t an infallible person.
And he made a huge mistake to go to Fort Senior.
In the months that followed, the kid would escape jail. Then, instead of leaving to another country or disappearing, what did he do? He rode right back to Fort Sumner where just about everyone in the area knew he’d be.
Garrett just grasped them and waited. He was not a fool.
Now, the main points I want to hammer home is that there were many eyewitnesses at Fort Sumner that night, and that no witness or official ever claimed Billy escaped. Also, no one in power ever questioned it, including the governor or the district attorney or members of the Ring. Garrett did receive the reward.
a photograph wasn’t necessary or even impossible, and Garrett had already shown he could be him. Any theory that suggests a hoax would require you to believe that everyone kept their mouths shut after Pat died, after it would have been safe to talk, for decades.
For those who still think about Brushy Bill, we’ll get to him in a moment. But for now, let’s examine why Brushy’s story sounds so compelling. We have an old man who has many scars, claims to know things.
People who’ve met him vouch for him. It sounds believable.
But the more you dig, the more you find a person who yo-yo was not just a simple old man. 13 years before he even met the governor of New Mexico, Brushy had already started making claims. In 1936, a newspaper reported that he was claiming to have been a Texas Ranger and had adventures involving machine guns.
Before Morrison, Brushy had been claiming to be Frank James. This proves he was a con artist before he ever was supposed to be Billy the Kid.
As for the scars, the only evidence of them is Morrison’s testimony. There are photos of Brushy Bill, and no scars visible. He could have been injured from working, but that wouldn’t make him Billy.
Even if we did see a scar, Billy the Kid had only one documented scar, which was the bullet wound he de’s leg. No one ever saw such a scar on Brushy. There was no official autopsy, and no record of the scars.
This, again, is an unverified story.
Did Brushy have insider knowledge? Not really. If anything, he had borrowed a lot of his knowledge from a popular 1926 book called “The Sage of Billy the Kid.”
Everything from stories involving to a pistol in a tree, to the Billy the Kid was left-handed, which we now know to be false due to mirrored images. It’s all from books.
Now, let’s address the affidavits. In 1950, William Morrison presented several people who claimed that Brushy was Billy. But that’s misleading.
Three of the five had never met the real Billy. The only two who possibly had were Joe Monotoya and Galeagoíz. They were children.
One even said he looked too young, then changed his mind. They are also inconsistent. And claim that Jesse Evans had vouched for Brushy is also wrong.
It was a man. The entire 𝒶𝒻𝒻𝒶𝒾𝓇 is just a mixture of known fraud claims and repeated misinformation.
Then there’s the long, long running myth that facial recognition study proved Brushy and Billy were a match. This is not true. The professor who was contacted explicitly said that the study was inconclusive, and the 93% match is non-existent.
They said they did not reach any conclusions.
The same professor also said that their work was crude, and someone intentionally misquoted them. In a separate match, thought the same one. Honestly, take their word for it vs an internet rumor.
There were no valid questions about the night Billy died. I will say that there is a chance Pat Garrett’s accounts have issues with some details, but the main fact – Billy did die – is undisputed by the witnesses.
As for Brushy bill himself, he wasn’t a reliable source. He claimed to have been a Pinkerton, a deputy, a member of an anti-horse thief association, a teenager lookout for Belle Star, a rodeo champion, a boxer, a rough rider, a fighter with Poncho Villa, a guy who caught wild horses, owner of a Wild West Show, and on and on. A guy who does not actually served in the military, but also claimed to have been a Navy SEAL.
The problem is that there is zero record of any of these.
We have the actual life records and they show Brushy Bill was born in 1888 in Arkansas. He was a toddler in 1881 and spent his life working on farms. There are censuses, birth certificates, a draft registration, and a marriage certificate, all that prove he was born in 1879.
Brushy believers then claim he took the identity of a cousin. That cousin, though, would have been younger than him. The age difference is constantly inconsistent, and he didn’t know who his parents were.
The bottom line is that none of his claims could be proven. his life story did not match his claims. And even if he did have a bunch of scars, the only wound it matters is the leg wound that Billy had, and no evidence says he had that.
Let’s look at an actual comment that shows the kind of widespread misunderstanding about this case. A man named David said that he would never believe Billy was fired at, because Brushy and a person were lying. But we’ve proven Brushy lying.
Washington, he claimed 4 friend that Billy would have spoken Spanish to. That a Hispanic man went into the house. That seems to be a big flag.
But the evidence shows he did speak Spanish, but he didn’t very much say a couple words. He had his guns, but that’s a misrepresentation of the core. The witness says no.
David also says Pat Garrett had shot a men and shot first first, and that this happened in a earlier case. When he says that he did 𝓀𝒾𝓁𝓁 a wrong man. Tom.
But Charlie Boby was killed is a result of Pat shooting, but not an accident. The only evidence that this was mistaken identity is the description of hat, but that isn’t enough.
And David also tries to say there were 16 people who said Garrett shot the wrong man, and 150 done so. That’s incredibly false. No.
Not one person who was there at Fort Sumner ever said that Garrett killed the wrong.
David also mentions a Pat Garrett’s daughter or his wife said that he did the wrong, but that story came from a guy claiming that in 2004 that he’d heard this from the old widow. That’s not any faction, not just you can operate any shape based on that.
David says “don’t people say he was zipped up in his pants and went to a dark room. That’s not exactly road. But that he was in fear is not a killer.
For the massive of claims, there’s not single primary source that proves he did. There’s more evidence that he didn’t.
And the existence of to quote this in the 2000s is similar to that he may have had a kid in Fort Set. But even then, it’s a random.
David says there’s no evidence he was a good man, but they weren’t the only witnesses, but again, there’s plenty of witnesses.
David believes that Brushy was the first person to “Tom gave me” correct for the name. That’s not true. Pat Garrett himself in his 1882 book called him Tom Ford.
He didn’t only say “Tom O’Follard.” The idea that he was first to correct it is a lie.
Look, I’m not trying to be mean, but I have to be real. What I’m talking about is a dangerous and disinformation. There is no positive evidence for the claim, just rumor.
People often ask me where is the proof.
The most reliable sources about Billy’s death. Exactly. Check them out.
“Billy the Kid: A Short and Violent Life” by Robert Utley. It has 80 pages of sources. It shows you can’t rely on myth.
No cover-up. It was all documented.
I hope this episode clears up some common misconceptions about the kid. I’m not asking you to believe him. I, myself, think the entire story is fine.
Even if I do think some of Pat’s story seems strange, the fact is the primary evidence is is overwhelming that Billy dies in that room. no matter all each and all these honest questions, the guy was as dead as a dead man can be.
Now speaking of none all amazing. I have a lot of respect for a lot of them as well. A lot of them the promoter of the “Brushy” theory.
Dan Elwood is the author of “Billy the Kid and the Anachronism.” He has his own channel. He contacted me a while back.
He, at core, he’s a nice guy. But I can’t agree. He’s always polite.
But I don’t think he is any closer to proving she made the same claim.
I have to say, we shouldn’t be mean to each other. I’ve been researching this for a long time. I know some of you won’t stop.
But I really don’t know if I need to going on. Just do not get so defensive.
Now I want to answer a couple of questions that have appeared. Things like “Was bill y dead in the tin type photo? There’s no historical reason to think that.
Billy gave funny copies to friends. There’s zero evidence to suggest otherwise. Also the silly claims that say that the picture was doctored.
Some say it’s a woman, but it’s a photo, it’s just a squished photo.
The truth is, that famous photo has been edited and cleaned, and he looks goofier, in these, been touched up. The man in the correct version seems a fine young man. As for the “s wide hips”, that’s a result of smear and damage.
So, yes, the kid was a man, and the photo wasn’t “dead.” That’s all i got. Remember to be nice.
And Adios.
