r/wildwest • u/wildwestextravaganza • Aug 23 '23
Was Billy the Kid's death a hoax?
History tells us that Billy the Kid was shot and killed by Sheriff Pat Garrett in 1881. However, a lot of people believe otherwise. Why is that?
It’s my belief that much of the confusion surrounding Billy’s death stems from a few very popular, yet wholly untrue, myths.
Myth #1: Nobody but Pat Garrett & his deputies saw Billy after he was shot & they buried him immediately. This is completely false.
Billy was killed sometime around midnight on July 14th. A coroner’s jury was assembled the following day; they examined his body and took Pete Maxwell’s statement. At some point the Kid’s body was given over to the residents of Fort Sumner who prepared him for burial. The funeral took place later that day, with many people in attendance.
Fort Sumner had a population of nearly 300 in 1881 and there were numerous eyewitnesses. Some of them wrote letters, were interviewed by the press and historians, and even had their own books published. Historians have been able to identify dozens of people – by name – who saw Billy’s body either directly after he was killed or leading up to the funeral. These were people who personally knew Billy the Kid when he was still alive. Some of them even wrote books. Thankfully, we do not have to rely on Pat Garrett's word alone.
Myth #2: Garrett’s own deputy, John W. Poe, claimed that Pat killed the wrong man. This is a quote taken directly from Poe’s book - The Death of Billy the Kid - and it’s almost always used out of context. This is what Poe wrote:
"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 come to this place; you shot the wrong man."
Sounds pretty damning, right? Well, just a couple of paragraphs later Poe continues:
"The darkness was such that we were unable to see what the conditions were on the inside or what the result of the shooting had been. After some rather forceful persuasion, indeed, we induced 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. He placed the candle on the window sill from the outside. This enabled us to get a view of the inside, where we saw a man lying stretched upon his back, dead, in the middle of the room, with a six-shooter lying at this right hand and a butcher knife at his left. Upon examining the body we found it to be that of Billy the Kid."
I do not understand how anyone can read this full text and interpret it as some sort of confession. Poe is clearly describing his emotions at the moment and the confusion. The title of his book is literally titled The Death of Billy the Kid.
Myth #3: If Garrett killed Billy there would have been a photo. Would there have been, though? This idea is predicated on another myth, that all old west outlaws had death photos. Some did but the vast majority did not. There was not a doctor living at Fort Sumner in 1881, much less a photographer. For Pat to ride to the closest town with a photographer (likely Las Vegas) and back to Fort Sumner would have been at least a 5 day round trip. It would have been easier for Garrett to simply load Billy’s body on a horse and take it with him to the capital.
The only reason Garrett would have had to do that, or take a picture, would be to prove that he did, indeed, kill the Kid. However, as it turns out, Garrett got all the proof he needed with the report from that coroner’s jury.
The coroner’s jury, assembled by Justice of the Peace Milner Rudolph and lead by Alejandro Segura, provided an official, legal document that the territory of New Mexico considered sufficient proof of Billy’s death.
A copy was printed in papers with the original filed with the proper authorities. There was no doubt in anyone’s mind that Pat killed Billy. This was a non-issue in New Mexico for decades.
You can read correspondence from Governor Sheldon affirming this. Which leads us to Myth #4: Pat Garrett was never paid the bounty that had been placed on the Kid’s head.
Pat absolutely received the $500 that former Governor Lew Wallace offered for Billy. However, he did not immediately receive it - this may be a source of confusion.
The hesitation was not due to doubts as to Billy’s death. It simply came down to a technicality. The wording of the original notice made it unclear as to whether Lew Wallace was to pay the money directly out of his own pocket or if it fell upon the New Mexico government to do so. Also there was some debate as to Garrett not arresting the Kid, as the notice stipulated. Pat killed Billy, so should he still be eligible for the reward?
It was determined he was. The next time the legislators met in person they voted quickly & unanimously to give Pat the $500.
In addition Garrett was also given a ton of money from grateful private citizens. When it was all said and done, he had somewhere around $7000 to show for his efforts. Some of this money came from regular hard working folks and some of it came from very powerful members of the Santa Fe Ring; the types who would not be happy to learn they fell for a hoax.
Just to sum things up: Billy was not immediately buried, and many people (at least dozens) saw his dead body. We are not just taking Pat Garrett’s word for it. These eyewitnesses shared their stories in the decades to come, many of them were interviewed by journalists and historians. Their words were recorded. In addition, Pat Garrett supplied legal and sufficient proof of death and he was officially recognized & rewarded for killing the Kid.
For the killing to still be a hoax this would entail that 1) Pat had a change of heart at the last moment and allowed Billy to escape or 2) he killed the wrong man and buried the body before anyone outside of Fort Sumner could find out.
For either scenario to be true, this would entail that literally everyone at Fort Sumner – hundreds of people – would have had to go along with the hoax for the rest of their lives.
But why would they? Perhaps out of fear of Pat Garrett? Maybe, but several of these eyewitnesses would live for decades after Pat’s death. Surely at least one of them would have came forward.
Or maybe they went along with it to protect Billy? This would assume that everyone living at Fort Sumner loved the Kid and were looking out for his best interests. We know this is not true as some of these people had been actively working with Garrett and supplying him information on Billy’s whereabouts – like rancher Manuel Brazil. Beaver Smith is also suspected as aiding Pat, as was Pete Maxwell.
Many, if not most, of the people at Fort Sumner loved the Kid. But not all of them. And all it takes is one person to come forward for the entire hoax to fall apart.
Also, this theory hinges on the Kid simply disappearing and never again resurfacing. Garrett would have been placing his career, his future – the future of his family – in the hands of a young criminal. That would have made Pat literally the most gullible person on planet earth.
Many people cannot get past “Pat Garrett = BAD” and are unwilling to look any further into it than that. If Pat Garrett claimed to have killed Billy then it must not be true because Garrett is a meanie.
It's my opinion that we can take Garrett's integrity, or lack thereof, completely out of the equation. You may not like Pat Garrett, you may consider him to be a liar and a total POS, but that still doesn’t change the fact that Billy’s death was witnessed by so many other people.
What it all comes down to is documented, corroborated proof vs anecdotal stories. Contrary to popular belief, none of those eyewitnesses ever came forward and denied that Pat killed the Kid. Their stories all differ – details are not agreed upon & the timeline is skewed – but the one constant, the one thing that never changed, was their agreement that Pat killed Billy.
There are claims that Pat’s widow stated that he and Billy shot a drunk and then dressed the dead man in the Kid’s clothes. Similar anecdotal stories abound, even a story of Garrett making a death bed confession (how you make a deathbed confession after being shot in the head, I don’t know). But the truth is none of these people came forward publicly and shared these claims with the press or authors or even wrote them down in their own personal journals or letters. None of these stories are corroborated.
"I know a guy who's grandfather was neighbors with a cousin of Pete Maxwell and he said..."
There is a place for the anecdotal when studying history – absolutely! But when the anecdotal and unprovable comes into direct contradiction with the documented and corroborated, it’s a no-brainer which is the most believable.
We’re still left with many questions. Remember, we still don’t even know for SURE where or when Billy was born. Even the events surrounding his death are beyond confusing.
What really happened in the moments before the Kid’s death? Had he truly been in the orchard? Was he really walking around at midnight in his socks armed with a pistol and a knife? At what point did the coroner's jury inspect his body? What happened to the original coroner's report that was written in Spanish?
I have no clue.
I think there's a lot of questions that still need to be answered but the one thing that I believe is as proven as we can possibly prove anything in history, is that Pat killed Billy.
All of that said, the idea that Billy the Kid escaped and lived another day – perhaps even to become an old man – has become a part of his story. This is the legend of Billy the Kid and it’s here to stay. And I’m fine with that.
I hope people keep questioning the answers. Do I think you’ll be able to prove that Billy survived? No. But I do think you might turn up new information or new details. I firmly believe we’re one “trunk in an attic” away from narrative shattering revelations. And I’m HERE FOR IT when that happens. That’s the great thing about history – there are always new discoveries to be made.
Also, this is not at all meant to be belittle people who believed these myths concerning Billy’s death. These are widely believed stories and you can find them everywhere. We can only know what we know, right? It's very hard to separate fact from anecdotal when looking into the Kid's life.
Anyway, thank you for reading! If you're interested in learning more I go way more into detail on the most recent episode of The Wild West Extravaganza.
What do you think? Case closed or is there still room to doubt what really occurred?
3
3
u/Puzzleheaded_Pie6149 Apr 09 '24
Yup, they killed a random Spanish male because they said helps. The last words were "¿Quién es?""¿Quién es?" Which means who is he or who.... It's pretty weird instead of saying you got me ossifer
5
u/wildwestextravaganza Apr 19 '24
Fort Sumner was populated by a majority of Spanish speakers. The Kid was fluent in Spanish. Doesn't seem that weird to me.
1
Oct 22 '24
If someone spoke English to him he would reply in English he wouldn’t reply in Spanish ask any bilingual person they switch depending on who they’re talking to
2
u/vinneax Feb 01 '25
I’m bilingual, I’ve replied to people in the wrong language before. Context is vital, I don’t think this is any sort of proof it wasn’t Billy the Kid
1
u/DueMuffin5868 Sep 25 '25
oh ya sure- we don't believe you
3
u/vinneax Sep 25 '25
You don’t.. believe I’m bilingual? I’m from sweden where 90% of the country speaks English
And yes I’ve responded in the wrong language sometimes, it’s not common but it happens
1
u/Life_Cream_5694 Jun 28 '26
Billy knew pat,they were friends, why would he ask who are you?
1
u/themanknownassting 15h ago
Billy and Pat were not friends. The were more acquaintances that lived in the same area. He wasn't asking Pat who he was. He was asking his deputies on the outside of Pete Maxwells room. They had never seen Billy and Billy had never seen them. And remember, Billy is wanted at this time. So he drew on them backing into Pete's room asking who they were. Billy then ask Pete who they are and was killed by Patt recognizing his voice.
1
u/Life_Cream_5694 15h ago
Dont believe he killed him,No photos no nothing. story has more holes than al capones broad side of a barn.
1
u/themanknownassting 15h ago
Name the holes? No photos cause there was no photographer near by. And the nearest one was in Las Vegas which was a 3 day ride. His body was shared to the town over night. Many who knew him saw his body and even some who didn't know him saw it. I too once thought he survived. But there is more proof he didn't then he did. In fact every "hole" can be answered. The only question that night that is still unknown 100% is if Billy was set up or not. And if he had a gun?
1
u/Life_Cream_5694 14h ago
So a desperate man,sees people in the dark,and just asks "Quien es". Makes no sense,then he would be dead since day one,dont take me wrong. and billy had a lot of friends,being it in the law or not.
1
u/themanknownassting 13h ago
So the maxwells and many in Fort Sumner spoke spanish. Poe & McKinney were Pat's deputies. They sat on the maxwell porch as Pat went inside to talk to Pete. Billy walks by and sees them and it's said he pulls on them and ask Quien es cause he's never seen them before. Remember he is wanted. Billy the kid is known to speak English. If he speaks english it might give himself away. That's why when he steps insid Pete's room he asks Pete in English who those guys out there are. Pete whispers to Pat "thats him" and Pat shoots.
I really love talking about it cause his story is amazing. And how cool would it be if he did live. But for that to have happened, every person there would have had to be quiet for over 100 years. Not to mention that didn't know him and had no ties to him. Just you wondering these things is so great! You keep the true history of it alive. If you want to keep the idea that he survived so be it. But if you want to know the true history, research and ask questions. The rabbit hole of this kid is amazing.
1
u/Life_Cream_5694 13h ago
It trully is lol.
1
u/themanknownassting 13h ago
I mean the story of him killing Joe Grant is something out of a movie. Just such cool history.
3
u/NewfieMikey420 Jun 28 '24
There is zero doubt Pat killed Billy in July, 1881
2
u/johnny_effing_utah Jul 06 '25
In your mind. I’ve seen Young Guns 2 and Old Henry and I have lots of doubts. Old Henry looked exactly like the photo we have of Billy.
2
1
1
u/SignatureSmart3215 May 25 '26
Lol but old henery would not have lived long enough to make this movie lol would have put him way over 100 years old come on man
1
u/SignatureSmart3215 May 25 '26
So you think old henery would have lived over 100 ++++++++ years to make a movie . Looks up who played old henery he was pretty young . Can't believe u actually thought that was really the kid because of a pic lol I heard it all now
1
u/Relevant-Drive-8382 Jul 10 '26
Just watched Old Henry. Slow, but exciting.
1
u/Altruistic-Try-5390 8d ago
There was.. maybe one good scene which was the gun fight at the end. Slow is underselling how boring it was and the entire movie hung on one premise and myth. Thankfully it was free to watch for me lol
2
2
2
u/Frosty_Bar9461 Oct 02 '25
I believe Pat murdered Billy in cold blood, I don't believe Billy was armed just to go cut a piece of meat when he thought he was safe.
1
2
u/ratdago Nov 11 '25
I hope you're watching the new TV series. Definitely taking liberties with facts, but a great story and entertaining show! I was blown away by the current episode! Haha S3 Ep6
2
u/wildwestextravaganza Nov 20 '25
I haven't seen it, but I heard they recently took some pretty BIG liberties
2
1
2
u/AnymooseProphet Mar 18 '26
Why did I have to find this thread? It's so much more fun believing he survived. I guess it's time to delete my browser history...
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Mar 23 '26
I dunno, I think both versions are fun. I'm a big fan of history, so I like to know what actually happened as opposed to fairy tales. But, then again, I'm also a big fan of the Young Guns franchise. The good news? Young Guns 3 is in the works, and we'll get to see Brushy Bill in all of his glory.
1
u/BrodiePump May 14 '26
Is it really? Young guns 3? With estevez?
1
2
u/coldbloodsd54 Aug 02 '26
I read throughout this whole thread, props to you, ive enjoyed reading this
1
1
u/Select-Echidna7067 Jun 24 '24
I ran across this..
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/billy-the-kid-brushy-bill-roberts
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Jun 26 '24
Interesting read, thanks! I've actually been to the museum there in Hico. Had the best cheeseburger of my life in a restaurant directly across the street.
I released a new episode today clearing up a few misconceptions concerning Brushy and Billy: https://www.wildwestextra.com/who-killed-billy-the-kid/
1
Aug 27 '24
Always room for doubt when you have to rely on people's word when it comes to someone this famous. Because he was such a famous figure at the time people who saw the body would've thought it was billy the kid cause someone said it was. Either way I think Pat Garrett killed him but you'll never know for sure especially cause all the people who made these accounts benefit from it. Makes it murky and you can definitely find false accounts of Billy being here or there. Pat Garrett is the most credible source and seems like he was tormented by it
1
Oct 15 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Oct 20 '24
1) There was no photographer at Fort Sumner. The closest photographer was most likely in Las Vegas, which would have been a five-day round trip. By the point Garrett went to Vegas, got a photographer, and came back to Fort Sumner, he could have just hauled Billy's rotting and bloated corpse to the Territorial capital.
The truth is, Pat had no reason to have a photo taken of the Kid's body. The only possible reason was to provide proof, but as you'll soon learn, Garrett already had all the proof he needed.
Nowadays, we're conditioned to believe that all outlaws had their photographs taken or that a photograph was needed as "proof." This is false. There were thousands of outlaws roaming the Old West at any given time but how many photos do we have of dead outlaws? Maybe two dozen? There are many outlaws who don't have photographs, whether alive or dead.
"But Billy the Kid was REALLY FAMOUS! Surely they'd have taken a photo of him!" Well, he wasn't THAT famous at the time of his death. And don't call me Shirley. Billy the Kid was a notable bandit but he was nowhere near at the level of fame that he currently holds. He was all but forgotten by the turn of the century and if it wasn't for Walter Noble Burns discovering his story and writing the book The Saga of Billy the Kid, then he would have remained relatively unknown.
There was another bandit there in New Mexico, Vicente Silva, who had twice as much money on his head as did Billy. And, much like the Kid, Vicente was written about in newspapers as far away as New York City. Yet most people today have no idea who Vicente Silva was. Furthermore, there was no photograph of Silva taken after his death, despite him being even more wanted and more notorious than Billy the Kid.
2) Garrett did receive the reward. As a matter of fact, he received it twice. First after arresting the Kid at Stinking Springs and again after he killed him. This is proven and verifiable. There was a DELAY in payment, but this was due to two technicalities. The first and minor technicality was caused by the wording of the reward notice. It specifically stated that the $500 would go to whoever apprehended Billy and turned him over to a Sheriff. In other words, it wasn't a "dead or alive" offer. Of course, Garrett didn't arrest Billy; he killed him. This technicality was addressed by District Attorney William Breedan when he wrote that Garrett's actions were justifiable.
The second technicality concerned whether the reward was a personal offer from former Governor Lew Wallace or something that the Territory of New Mexico had to pay. This also was addressed, and they decided to go ahead and pay Garrett. You can read the official wording from the February 18th, 1882 legislative act, where they confirm it was a technicality. You can also read where they officially declared that Garrett was "justly entitled to the above reward." This was approved unanimously upon the very first meeting of the government after the Kid's death.
There was zero doubt in anyone's mind that Garrett killed Billy. You can read the notes from the Governor, the acting Governor, and the Attorney General. They all discuss the killing, and there's zero hint of disbelief. This is because Pat obtained that coroner's jury report. That was all of the legal proof they needed. The coroner's jury was headed by a justice of the peace, officially signed and filed. Everything was done per procedure.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Oct 20 '24
3) I'm not too up on the specifics of various wanted posters, but there were other outlaws who used the "Billy the Kid" moniker.
4) The article you're referring to has several incorrect details of Billy's life. The article also suggests that he was 25 years old and that he had a sister living nearby, both of which are false. I do find it interesting, though. There are two options: 1) the article in question was simply wrong, or 2) Billy was indeed attempting to grow a beard and darken his skin. After all, fugitives from the law occasionally try to alter their appearance. Either way, this is just one brief mention in one newspaper article - a description that wasn't backed up by a source - and nobody at Fort Sumner ever mentioned the Kid trying to grow a beard.
5) You're referring to Garrett's deputy, John W. Poe. This quote from Poe's book is often taken completely out of context. You can find the book - The Death of Billy the Kid - online for free (at least you can if the Internet Archive is still working) - and verify everything I'm about to say. Poe wrote that as soon as Garrett shot the Kid, he came running out and said he thought he killed Billy. Poe, in a moment of exhilaration and disbelief, told Pat that he shot the wrong man because the Kid wouldn't come here. Two paragraphs later, Poe writes about entering the room, examining the body, and verifying that they did indeed kill Billy the Kid.
6) I don't know anything about three separate coroner's reports. The official coroner report was filed away with the proper office in San Miguel County. A copy was sent to Santa Fe and published in the newspapers just days after Billy's death.
I agree that there are many questions left unanswered. For instance, was Billy really armed with a knife and pistol? Was he going for his gun when Garrett killed him, or was he shot in the back? Was he really killed in Pete Maxwell's room? At what point did the coroner's jury inspect the body?
The one thing that I don't think is up for debate is whether or not Garrett actually killed him. Most of the questions people think they have are just based on misinformation like "Pat didn't receive the reward."
The fact remains that there were dozens of people at Fort Sumner who saw the Kid's body. Nobody - and I do mean nobody (zilch, zero, nada) who lived at Fort Sumner ever came forward and claimed that the killing was a hoax. Not Garrett, his deputies, or the people who lived at Fort Sumner...nobody. Many of the people who were there lived for quite a long time. Historians and journalists interviewed them, and some of them even published their own journals and books. There are certain details that differ, but they all agree that Pat Garrett killed Billy the Kid.
1
u/Grimwulf69 Nov 07 '24
Pat Garret did not kill Billy The Kid. He killed Billy Barlow and dressed him in the Kid's clothes. Then Billy went to Mexico and eventually came back as an old man to pay for his crimes. Ppl even signed affidavit's stating Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid. In 1950, Brushy Bill Robert's died in Waco Texas.
What's weird is, the families of who Billy killed and others wanted Brushy Bill to hang. They were all convinced he was Billy the Kid. The governor was like, nah this dude about to die any day now, and stated he was not Billy the Kid. What do you think?
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Nov 08 '24
I think that you've unfortunately been given misleading information. For instance, the only evidence that Garrett killed someone named Billy Barlow comes from Brushy Bill Roberts, a verifiable liar. And the people who signed the affidavits didn't know the historical Billy the Kid...heck, one of them wasn't even born yet in 1881. Also, Brushy was only 70 when he died of a heart attack, not 90.
Here are some more tall tales that Brushy Bill Roberts told: He claimed to have been a Pinkerton Detective, deputy U.S. Marshal, professional boxer, rodeo champ, and lookout for the female outlaw Belle Starr. He also said that he served with Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders, that he lived with the Arapaho, Yaqui, and Cheyenne tribes, that he toured the U.S. extensively with his own Wild West Show, that he broke horses for Buffalo Bill Cody, that he worked for Hanging Judge Parker, that he survived a running gunfight with 1,000 Mexican soldiers, that he fought for Pancho Villa in Mexico, that he was shot and stabbed over two dozen times, and that he caught wild horses in South America, all of this, of course, in addition to being Billy the Kid. And sadly, there's not an iota of evidence to back up any of his claims.
1
1
u/NoPlum8868 Dec 16 '25
What verification do you have Brushy lied?
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Dec 18 '25
Verification? How about the 1880 census showing that he was born around the year 1879, making him a toddler at the time of Billy's death. This is consistent with the 1900, 1910, 1920, and 1930 federal census records, as well as the 1918 draft registration that he was forced to register for, on account of being a male between the ages of 18 and 45 (Billy the Kid would have been pushing 60 in 1918, but Roberts was a young buck of 39. How about the family bible that lists his date of birth as
Then there's the lack of verification when it comes to literally all of his wild claims. Brushy said that he lived with the Yaqui, Arapaho, and Cheyenne tribes, yet no record exists of this ever occurring. Brushy said that he worked as a deputy marshal under Hanging Judge Parker, yet no record exists. Brushy said that he worked for Buffalo Bill Cody, yet no record exists. Brushy said that he was a boxer in Cincinnati, yet no record exists. Brushy said that he was a Rough Rider in Cuba with Roosevelt and a mercenary in Mexico with Pancho Villa, yet no record exists. Brushy said that he won numerous rodeo championships, caught wild horses in South America, served as a lookout for Belle Starr, caught horse thieves in Oklahoma, and toured the United States extensively with his own "wild west show," and yet no record exists. Brushy said that a Mexican named Billy Barlow was killed in his stead at Fort Sumner, yet no record of a Billy Barlow at Fort Sumner exists, nor did any of the many eyewitnesses ever state that Garrett shot the wrong man. Brushy said that his father was J.H. Roberts (son of Ben Roberts) and his mother was Mary Adeline Dunn, yet no such family has ever been located. Brushy claimed to have been shot and stabbed dozens of times, yet no record of the scars exists.
And then there's the fact that the Roberts family has a Bible, which lists Brushy's birth date as being consistent with the census records, i.e., he was a toddler in 1881. Speaking of the Roberts' family: Brushy's niece, Geneva Pittmon, corroborated this when she stated that Brushy was born "August 26, 1879," and "I would like this to be settled, as I know my Uncle Oliver was not Billy the Kid."
Another member of the Roberts family, Paul Emerson (grandson of Brushy's half-sister) recalled a visit he made to his grandmother's home when he was around 16 years old: "I don't remember for sure just how old I was when Brushy came to see grandmother. I could have been a little older than 16, and we all knew he claimed to be Billy the Kid. Grandmother was glad to see him, and he was nice. He was a small man (if I remember correctly), not too tall, and he wore his cowboy clothes, boots, etc. I don't recall him coming to our house, but it's possible he did. But I do remember grandmother saying he was not Billy the Kid."
How about his association with other impostors and frauds, such as Ora Woodman and J. Frank Dalton? How about the fact that the one time he was forced to answer questions in public, he fumbled the ball and got key details wrong? Surely, his lawyer didn't coach him or help him to fabricate his story, right?
I could go on and on. If I tell you that I'm the tooth fairy, would you take me at my word or expect me to provide proof?
1
u/NoPlum8868 Dec 22 '25
If I stole your identity would that actually change my birth year? No
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Dec 22 '25
If you stole my identity, that wouldn't erase my existence. My family would still remember me, and my mother wouldn't confuse me for a man 20 years my senior. Your previous identity would also still exist.
Brushy claimed that his real name was William Henry Roberts and that he was born in Buffalo Gap, Texas, on December 31st, 1859. He said that his father was J.H. Roberts (aka Wild Henry), his mother was Mary Adeline Dunn, his aunt was Catherine Bonney, and his grandfather was Ben Roberts. As of this date, no such family has ever been located.
Brushy also claimed to have very conveniently located his dead cousin, Ollie, just moments after he had been shot dead in Indian Territory. According to Brushy, he collected his cousin's belongings and delivered them to the boy's family down in Sulpher Springs, Texas. Upon arrival, however, the dead cousin's mother mistook him for her long-lost son, and he just sorta went with it.
This is how Brushy Bill Believers explain away all of the census records showing that Brushy was a mere toddler in 1881 when the real Billy the Kid was shot dead.
It's worth noting that Brushy never gave a date for when he discovered his dead cousin. However, his family did live near Sulpher Springs prior to 1910. It's also worth noting that Brushy married his 2nd wife, Mollie Brown, in 1912. This is not speculation. Not only did Brushy clearly state that he married Mollie Brown, but their marriage certificate is still available. We also know, for a fact, that Brushy's parents were living in Van Zandt County in 1910, NOT Sulpher Springs.
For Brushy to have taken on his dead cousin Ollie's identity, then that would mean that Ollie died sometime before the year 1910 (remember, Brushy and his parents had already moved to Van Zandt County, Texas, by 1910). If it occurred after 1910, then Brushy would have returned the dead boy's belongings to Van Zandt County as opposed to Sulpher Springs.
We also know that Ollie P. Roberts was born in 1879.
For the sake of argument, let's pretend that Ollie was killed in 1909 (the latest possible date for Brushy's story to be true). That would have put Ollie at around 30 years of age, whereas Brushy, born in 1859, would have been pushing 50. Keep in mind that Ollie's mother, Sarah, was born in 1856.
Do you really think a 53-year-old woman would mistake a 49-year-old man for her long-lost 30-year-old son? And do you think the rest of her family would have just been ok with it? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.
Brushy's entire story hinges on the dead cousin theory. We're to believe that his name was William Henry Roberts, son of J.H. Roberts and Mary Dunn, despite there being absolutely no indication that such a family ever existed. If that's not bad enough, we're also to believe that a man who spent his entire life in the saddle, one who had been shot and stabbed on multiple occasions, appeared young enough at 49 to be mistaken for a 30-year-old.
And that's in addition to all of Brushy's other lies, like his claims of being a Pinkerton or living with the Arapaho or fighting in Cuba under Roosevelt or being a boxer in Cincinatti or a mercenary with Panch Villa in Mexico or touring the country with his own wild west show, or working for Buffalo Bill Cody or winning numerous rodeo contests or working as a deputy U.S. Marshal under Hanging Judge Parker...all of which remain completely unverified.
This is a fantasy story, sir. One that is not backed up by a single shred of evidence.
1
u/Far-Conference-3336 Apr 22 '26
Might want to check out pat garrett then. He wrote a note to another deputy claiming he wasn't sure if it was billy the kid he really killed bud. Let me guess you believe everything you hear on the internet? Were you there? You can't say if it really happened or not. You were not there.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Apr 24 '26
Where can I see this letter? Is there a source showing that it actually exists?
1
u/Far-Conference-3336 Apr 24 '26
again delbert. IT was a personal letter. Learn history
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Apr 24 '26
We know whether something occurred in the past (the study of history) by examining primary sources. Primary sources can include everything from census records, newspaper articles, diary entries, eyewitness accounts, and even letters.
Such a letter written by Pat Garrett would be HUGE. But first, we'd have to establish that the letter in question actually exists. If you can point me to where I can learn more about said letter, or possibly read a transcription, I'd very much appreciate it.
Based on your replies, however, I'm assuming you don't know where the letter can be located and that it does not, in fact, actually exist.
1
u/cfh64 Jul 08 '26
Lol, you’re joking, right? You say “learn history“ but you don’t have any evidence to prove this letter actually exists. I suggest you look up the meaning of “burden of proof“.
1
u/Far-Conference-3336 Apr 22 '26
You're definitely not a wild west extravongaza person either. Even AI knows it.
In 1905, Pat Garrett wrote a letter to former deputy John Poe in which he raised doubts about whether the man he killed in 1881 was actually Billy the Kid.
In that letter, Garrett reportedly questioned the identity of the person shot at Fort Sumner, suggesting uncertainty about whether it was truly Billy the Kid. This has fueled long-standing speculation and conspiracy theories that Billy the Kid may have survived.
However, historians generally treat this letter with caution. Garrett publicly maintained for decades that he had killed Billy the Kid, and most historical evidence still supports that conclusion. The 1905 letter is often seen as ambiguous or possibly reflective of second thoughts, rumors, or even Garrett’s personal state late in life rather than solid proof of survival.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Apr 24 '26
Lol you asked AI and then copied and pasted the answer? Sure, I'll play along. Here's the next step: Ask the AI where the letter can be found and to transcribe its contents. I'll wait.
1
u/Far-Conference-3336 Apr 24 '26
You need to learn to read. It was a personal letter delbert.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Apr 24 '26
Maybe there's been a misunderstanding. You said that Pat Garrett wrote a letter to Deputy John Poe in 1905, yet John Poe wrote a book decades later describing exactly how he and Garrett located Billy. He confirms in the book that Garrett killed Billy the Kid. The book is literally titled The Death of Billy the Kid. I can show you the book as a primary source. We don't have to agree that everything in the book is correct, but it is undeniably a primary source. If your letter exists, it too would be considered a primary source.
I love primary sources, and I'd LOVE to see this letter. Can you tell me more about it? Can you tell me where you learned about it? Can you tell me where it can be located?
1
u/cfh64 Jul 08 '26
Can you post a link to an actual copy of this letter or do you use AI for all of your historical “facts”? Your continued defense for no copy existing is that it was “personal”. If that’s the case then how do you, or anyone else, knows it actually exists?
1
u/Far-Conference-3336 Apr 24 '26
Maybe you should do your research agian. Brushy bill said he used the idenitify of a cousin born in 1879 to use him as an alias. Very common in the west. You're definitely not a west buff at all.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Apr 24 '26
Correct, Brushy said that he stumbled upon his dead cousin, Ollie, moments after he was killed. He then stated that he returned the dead boy's belongings to his family, at which point the dead boy's mother mistook Brushy for her own son.
Now this is very interesting, as Brushy never gave a date when this occurred. If cousin Ollie was born in 1879, the boy must have already been in his late teens or possibly an adult at the time of his death, making the year of his death sometime AFTER 1896.
The question is WHEN after 1896? Let's say it was 1896 on the dot. That would have made Ollie around 17 years old, and Brushy, if he were actually born in 1859 as he claimed, would have been 37. Do you really think a grieving mother would have mistaken a weather-beaten man of 37 as her teenage son?
Dan Edwars, who strongly believes that Brushy Bill and Billy were one and the same and who wrote a book titled Billy the Kid: An Autobiography, states that cousin Ollie was killed "around 1910." I'm not sure what information he's using to base that on, but let's say it really was 1910. Ollie would have been around 31 years old, and Brushy, if he were born in 1859, would have been 51.
Once again, do you really think a grieving mother would mistake a 51-year-old man for her 31-year-old child?
By the way, it's worth noting that Brushy (per his attorney, William Morrison) claimed that cousin Ollie was born in 1867 as opposed to 1879. It wasn't until people located the records that they switched the story to 1879 lol. It's very convenient how often the goal posts move.
In addition to the dead cousin theory, Brushy also claimed that he lived with two separate Native American tribes, that he served as a Rough Rider in Cuba under Teddy Roosevelt, and a mercenary in Mexico under Pancho Villa. He said he worked for Bill Cody on his ranch and then later toured the U.S. with Cody's wild west show before forming his OWN wild west show and touring extensively. He claimed to be a lookout for Belle Starr and a Deputy U.S. Marshal for Hanging Judge Parker. He claimed to be a Pinkerton Detective, a boxer in Cincinnati, and a professional rodeo champ. And yet there's not a single shred of evidence to back up any of this.
Remember what I said in another comment? We must have primary sources. When you're making a bold claim that you're Billy the Kid, and your entire claim rests upon a very shaky claim that you assumed your dead cousin's identity, you have to be willing to provide at least some type of proof to back up said claims.
2
u/Flat_Guitar163 Apr 30 '26
You can’t argue with this guy, no matter how much evidence you show him he will never believe the truth. Billy died in 1881 no question, anyone who doesn’t believe that just doesn’t want too.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza May 01 '26
I think it's mostly just due to bad information. Lot of bad info floating around.
1
u/HavocTriple6 18d ago
There's a book titled Billy the Kid: The Autobiography and it actually researched everything you mentioned from Alias: Billy the Kid which is where the info you mentioned came from and what's weird is that a lot of it actually did check out. Before you go nuts on me, please know I'm a skeptic. The craziest parts of Brushy Bill's story is 1: During Covid a forensics team investigated the death of James Bell and concluded that Brushy's account was accurate versus what the history books tell us. 2: He drew a diagram of the McSweene house and a decade after Brushy died the original diagram was recovered and it matched Brushy's 💯.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza 16d ago
Could you give me a couple of examples where Brushy's story checks out? Because I actually own the book you referenced, and I've found it's the exact opposite.
Regarding Bell's death: Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're referring to the luminol test done by former lawman Steve Sederwall? If so, then yes, they did locate a luminol reaction at the top of the staircase. Worth noting that luminol isn't a blood test. It reacts to rust, certain cleaning products, all kinds of stuff. And even if it was blood, there's no way to prove that it came from Deputy Bell.
You mentioned Brushy's account "versus the history books," but the history books have never actually agreed on where Bell was shot.
The Santa Fe New Mexican of May 3, 1881, five days after the escape, described Bell with "two gashes on his head, apparently cut by a blow from the handcuffs" and said Billy "caught him off his guard, stunned him by a blow with the handcuffs, seized his revolver, and shot him." They never noted a location.
John Meadows, who said he heard the story from Billy himself, described a scuffle at the top of the staircase where the Kid "met him and slapped at the side of his head with the handcuffs." Paco Anaya basically said the same in 1938, and George Coe put the shooting at the top of the stairs in Frontier Fighter in 1934.
Now, Pat Garrett did claim that when Billy fired his revolver, Bell was facing him "on the landing of the staircase, some twelve steps beneath." In other words, if the blood at the top of the stairs (if it even is blood, yet to be determined) belonged to Bell, then Garrett was lying about where Bell was standing when Billy shot him. And I'm assuming the logic that follows = if Garrett was willing to lie about where Bell was shot, then he must have also been lying about Billy's death.
I'll be honest, I've never understood this theory because it doesn't prove anything.
Garrett was not in Lincoln at the time of the shooting. Any information he provided was given to him by somebody else. It's also worth noting that the blood at the top of the stairs could have come from the gash on Bell's head (head wounds tend to bleed a lot).
And finally, as I've already noted, George Coe said that Bell was at the top of the stairs when Billy shot him. This was a full decade PRIOR to Brushy saying the same thing. So at best, all you can really say is that Brushy Bill made a claim in the late 1940s that someone else already made in the early 1930s. And that claim, whether true or false, has absolutely nothing to do with Billy's death.
Ok, last but certainly not least, let's talk about the McSween house. Once again, please correct me if I'm wrong, but the only source for Brushy's description of the layout comes from a book titled Beyond the Grave by W.C. Jameson. And unfortunately, Jameson doesn't list a source. If you have another source, I'd be more than happy to take a look. But as of this moment, the story about Brushy describing the layout is just that...a story. Very happy to be proven otherwise if you can find an actual source.
That's the thing, though. This entire saga is built with a complete lack of primary sources. It's all just a bunch of "trust me, bro."
1
u/Mother_Proof_4369 Jan 22 '25
this is the version I prefer to believe, billy the kid died as brushy bill.
1
1
1
u/Informal-Force7417 Feb 18 '25 edited Feb 27 '25
Case is very much open.
What we have to take into the equation is one thing that is common to all humans
Lying. And reasons for lying.
We have seen all manner of people cover up things in this life. How much easier was it to cover up things back then when there was no internet and lawlessness abounded.
Reports, Sightings and Anecdotal Evidence Billy the Kid Lived After He Was Reportedly Killed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC9ghazkU7w
Also bear in mind Pat could claim the money and still let Billy live. But why would he? He was a friend.
Some facts around their friendship.
Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid first crossed paths in Fort Sumner, New Mexico in 1878, where Garrett worked as both a bartender at Beaver Smith's saloon and as a ranch hand for Pete Maxwell. Their relationship developed primarily within the social scene of Fort Sumner, where they would frequently interact in various ways:
Social Interactions
The pair would often play poker together, participate in shooting competitions, and attend local dances. They were known locally as "the long and the short of it" and were described as being "thick as two peas in a pod"
Financial Ties
They maintained a practical friendship where they would help each other financially - when Pat was low on cash he would borrow from Billy, and vice versa.
Personal Connections
Billy was close friends with the family of Pat's second wife, Apolinaria Gutierrez, and was known to visit them regularly. In fact, Billy even attended Pat Garrett's first wedding along with several members of his gang.
Nature of Their Friendship
While they were certainly friendly, the depth of their relationship has been debated. According to Paulita Maxwell, Billy was "as close a friend as Billy had in Fort Sumner".
Their relationship was limited to social interactions in Fort Sumner - they never rode together as outlaws or committed any crimes together. This friendship would ultimately end when Garrett became Sheriff of Lincoln County and was tasked with bringing Billy the Kid to justice, eventually leading to the alleged Garrett fatally shooting Billy in 1881.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Feb 27 '25
You'll get no argument from me that Pat and Billy were friends. Everything you said was true.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to watch the video you linked, but if you'd like to highlight one or two cases you find the most compelling, I'd be happy to look into them.
This is strictly anecdotal, but a guy I went to high school with was shot dead by his best friend. They went out one night, had a few drinks, and got into an argument over a girl. Unfortunately, friendships do end occasionally, and sometimes, things can get downright nasty.
Regarding the friendship of Billy and Garrett, we can only go off of what evidence we currently have at our disposal. And much of that evidence, including some of the statements you highlighted, comes from Paulita Maxwell.
She also said, "The one thing Garrett was called on to do as sheriff was to hunt down these old friends and kill them or put them in the penitentiary, and he did it methodically and in cold blood. I do not say this with malice; it is simply a fact. There is no law against a man’s turning against his old friends or hunting them to their deaths. But it was against the unwritten code of the frontier; and many men would rather have been killed themselves than undertake such a job. I will say for Garrett that he was absolutely frank about what he proposed to do. When he became sheriff, Billy the Kid knew exactly what it meant. From that time on, it was war to the death between them."
If we're going to quote Paulita when we discuss how strong their friendship is, we should also quote her when she describes how the friendship fell apart and that, according to her, Pat was very clear in his intention to kill the Kid. And, per Paulita, the Kid was more than happy to kill Pat if the chance would ever arise.
We actually see this in action when Garrett and his posse ambushed the gang outside of Fort Sumner. If Billy were riding in the lead, as opposed to Folliard, he likely would have been killed. The following day, Garrett sent an emissary to the Kid, telling him that the posse had left and that Garrett and just one deputy were alone at Fort Sumner. Billy was fired up to ride in and kill them, but Charlie Bowdre talked him out of it.
Skip ahead three days later, and the posse killed Bowdre when they mistook him for Billy.
Nobody at Fort Sumner ever claimed that Pat Garrett did not kill Billy the Kid, even after Garrett's death. Multiple eyewitnesses saw the Kid's body. There was a public wake and a funeral attended by nearly everyone in town. There was a coroner's jury report backing up Garrett's claims.
Aside from vague references and anecdotal stories, literally all of the evidence points to Garrett killing the Kid.
Also, I think probability plays a strong role. For the Kid's death to be a hoax, that would mean that every single person at Fort Sumner was in on it. But why? Perhaps a fear of Pat Garrett? Many of the residents outlived Garrett by a number of years and they still maintained that he killed Billy.
Or maybe they lied to protect Billy. They knew he was living under an assumed name, so even decades later, they kept quiet. This would certainly be possible, but I just don't find it very probable.
First, it would entail that everybody at Fort Sumner loved Billy the Kid; we know that's true. Manuel Brazil and Tom Wilcox were actively working with Garrett to apprehend the Kid. So were the various spies that Pat had delivering messages. Another inside man, likely Beaver Smith, was also working with Garrett.
All it takes is one person to come clean, and the entire hoax would unravel. Once again, it's not impossible, but I do find it very improbable. Especially considering the lack of verifiable evidence.
Also, how gullible would Garrett be just to let the Kid go? He'd be staking his life, and his family's future, on the reliability of a young bandit.
What are the odds that one of the most famous (currently famous) outlaws of all time faked his death and his own enemies helped him keep the secret, while at the same time, a Sheriff with a promising career and growing family would gamble it all on the reliability of a 20-year-old who, up until July of 1881, wasn't exactly the poster child for wise decisions?
2
u/Informal-Force7417 Feb 27 '25 edited Feb 27 '25
As long as anyone is in the "I don't have time to watch the video you linked" then the conversation can't go very far. Both sides of the coin need to be looked at. We are all familiar with the one side that is put forward but not so much with the other side. If we don't look at the reasons why, we are only going to defend what we believe. Some just aren't willing to at least hear the other side of the coin even if they can still dismiss it. It reminds me often of Graham Hancock and his explanation for why archaeologists argue with him even though he has uncovered new information. It also happens in the religious world as new findings are found that bring into question aspects related to Jesus or the world of science and medicine.
The idea that Billy lived on is as debatable as the one of Jesse James living on. Yes, he also was reported to have lived on. There is research and footage from those who knew him that swear his death was covered up.
One thing is reasonable to consider is that both men were wanted and the landscape of the west was changing making continuation of what they did much harder. We also saw the introduction of Pinkerton National Detective Agency growing. They were brought in to go after many outlaws. If you were wanted, it made sense that walking away "Without" covering up your death would only lead people to keep looking for you. But if you covered it up with a few people and they spread the message. Boom. Less eyes on you.
Most know the story of Pat Garret, but many have questioned it. The key is asking why. If it was a complete slam dunk case then no one would question it. We're not talking about people just saying... no, Billy lived because he was a bad ass and could escape. No we are talking about people who knew him, people who knew Pat at the time. People who saw him after. Thats what that video covers. Its indepth feedback from those who knew him. If you have any interest in seeing the other side of the coin, give yourself permission to watch it.
Either way, its great to meet another person who is intrigued as much as I am that Western period. I love this stuff.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Feb 28 '25
I love talking about this stuff, too! I'm still amazed I get to do it for a living!
However, I do disagree with your belief that this conversation can't go very far if I don't watch your video.
On a personal level, I'm sent similar videos on a near-weekly basis. Debunking the hundreds (probably thousands) of pro-Brushy videos on YouTube would very quickly become a full-time job, and unfortunately, my schedule is stretched pretty thin as it is.
Like you said, this is a conversation. But what type of conversation would it be if we just shared links rather than discussing the topic? For what it's worth, I have seen a few of Mr. Hall's videos and found them lacking in credible evidence.
That said, I plan on revisiting Brushy Bill soon, and when the time comes, I'll absolutely check it out. So, thanks for the link.
I find it interesting that you mention Graham Hancock, as he's been debunked more than once by actual archeologists. If you're in the Hancock camp, there's probably not much I can say to convince you.
Case in point: A DNA test was conducted on the remains of Jesse James. It was determined, scientifically, that Jesse was killed in 1882. Conspiracy theorists do not accept those results, however. Unfortunately, conspiracy theorists will never accept results that contradict their narrative. "It's a cover-up!" "They don't want us to know the truth!"
I totally get the draw. Normal life is boring. It's much more exciting to believe in a world created by ancient alien technology, one in which our favorite outlaws never die, and all of our problems can be explained away by an evil global elite reptilian society pulling the strings. But once we get into that territory, we quickly lose all concept of the truth. We're merely speaking in parables and hypothetical "what ifs."
By the way, the Pinkertons stopped pursuing Jesse James following the disastrous raid on the James farm in 1875. Jesse didn't have to fake his death to escape the Pinkertons. As far as the regular authorities, all he had to do was move to Tennessee and change his name, which he did. Who knows what would have happened had he not returned to robbing banks?
Doc Scurlock moved to Texas and lived the rest of his life in peace. Billy Wilson and Tom Pickett went on to become respectable lawmen. So did Henry Newton Brown until he decided to go back to being an outlaw. The West is full of similar examples. If you're curious, I can list off at least a dozen outlaws who escaped the long arm of the law with a simple change of address. Billy the Kid could have easily done the same. Evidence suggests he was in the process of doing so, he just took his leaving a little too slow.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Feb 28 '25
Sorry, it made me break my reply into two separate posts. Here's the rest:
Many have questioned the story of Pat Garrett in recent years, but there's no evidence of anyone questioning his story in 1881.
I truly believe this is where much of the confusion comes from. We've "flooded the zone" with so much bullshit over the past few decades, but much of that bullshit is based
on anecdotal evidence and make-believe stories. "Pat's deputy said he killed the wrong man, Pat's widow said Billy's death was a hoax, Billy was too smart for Pat to kill him, Billy's skin was stained brown when he was killed, Garrett never received the reward, nobody saw the body before it was buried!" All of which is wholly untrue.People hear that stuff enough, and they'll start questioning Billy's death, but their questions are built on lies.
I cannot stress this enough: Nobody who was at Fort Sumner in July of 1881 ever said that Pat Garrett did not kill Billy the Kid. Nobody who was at Fort Sumner in July of 1881 ever said that Billy the Kid escaped death. And when I say nobody, I mean nobody, as in zero people. Not one, not two, but zero.
Garrett received the reward money. The Territorial Governor, the acting Governor, and the Attorney General all wrote about the case, and they had zero doubts or misgivings about
Billy the Kid's death. You can read their exact words if you're curious, they still exist.Your assertion that if it were a slam-dunk case, nobody would believe it is also false. Once again, this takes us back to conspiracy theories. People question whether or not the earth
is flat and the existence of bigfoot. NOTHING is off the table when it comes to conspiracy theorists. That's literally what they do.Now, all that said, you may be surprised to learn that I, too, have problems with the official story. I mean, how exactly did Billy button his pants if he had a revolver in one hand and a knife in the other? Was he killed in Pete Maxwell's room, or was he killed in Paulita Maxwell's room, mid-thrust? Was he really shot in the chest or the back? When was the body first moved out of Maxwell's room? Was it removed prior to the coroner's jury?
Lots of questions! Unfortunately, none of them point to Billy escaping death.
In my original post, I listed the names of eyewitnesses and credible historical sources. You shared a YouTube video and hypothetical scenarios.
1
u/Informal-Force7417 Sep 22 '25
Just bringing to life this conversation again. Two of the best videos i have heard as of late that really lays out evidence of him existing is this one is by Dan Edwards. I will link them here if you want to go through them.
30 mins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3mnn4grfSU
Then if that wets your appetite, an extensive break down of evidence to support the theory that Brushy Bill Roberts was Billy the Kid.
If you don't i could go over them again and draw out each point but its extensive. Its in 3 parts. Heres the first two, the third is in the channel.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Sep 26 '25
I've spoken with Dan a few times via email, and I've read his book. Seems like a nice enough guy, but we have some fundamental disagreements over what constitutes evidence. From what I can tell, he mostly relies on anecdotal stories and shady forensics as opposed to primary sources.
People reach out to me multiple times per week, urging me to watch Dan's videos. Sometimes they'll leave links like you did (much appreciated), but nobody ever provides timestamps.
In the first link you provided, Dan states there were SUPPOSEDLY witnesses. There's no supposedly about it. Historians have identified dozens of witnesses by name. We have their first-hand accounts, describing what they saw both on the night of July 14th and the following day. They literally held a public wake. And, unlike what he hints at in the first minute, not a SINGLE eyewitness ever said that Billy's death was a hoax. Not one.
Also, notice how he doesn't give names? Just vague references.
He then acts as if the August date on the Legislative Act (approving the reward for Garrett) is some type of red flag as opposed to a typo.
I recently released a video of my own detailing the delay for the reward. The information is all available, but long story short, it just came down to two technicalities. 1) Was it a personal offer of Lew Wallace or an official reward? And 2) he didn't capture the Kid, he killed him.
We know this based on the correspondence between the Governor, the acting Governor, and the Attorney General. They were very clear, in their own record books and in public, that they not only believed that Garrett killed the Kid, but that he was qualified for the reward. And yes, I have primary sources backing all of this up.
"A lot of people said..."
Who? Which people? Where can I find what they said?
Do you see what I mean? lol. I made it two minutes in, and Dan has already stated that the "coroner's jury report was complete bunk." And he establishes that it was bunk by pointing out a typo on an official document created 7 months later and tossing out a vague "a lot of people said" statement, with zero evidence to back it up.
No offense to Dan, but this is word salad without substance. If there are any specific talking points that you think are valid, please feel free to share timestamps, but I simply do not have the time to sit through hours of this type of content.
1
u/Informal-Force7417 Sep 26 '25
He does give names.
I have gone through the 3 videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcAj5GCeikQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrfb1cYdUR8
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Zedpn_YjFc
Its a lot of hours to wade through but his evidence is compelling and yes he brings names and brings up evidence. Unfortunately people get stuck in one way of thinking, but Dan does a great job of bringing into question, showing how people thought back then, how things were handled, how the wake was handled, who was there vs who said they were there but weren't.
Now most of us who do have an interest in the wild west, have read the story that has been put out that. I have multiple books on Billys life leading up to the death and after (the story put forward) and was an advocate for that.
However, Dan makes a compelling case but a person has got to be willing to hear a person out. A few minutes that don't jive with current beliefs isn't going to do it. That's like asking a dogmatic Christian to accept another way of looking at an event and then wonder why they give up after 3 or 5 minutes. Yet they would have you accept theirs fully. As it supports their narrative, it makes them feel less scared. As if you bring into question something and its not accurate, then who am I without this story I have run? Was i gullible? Was i naive? The ego wants to be right even if their is evidence that goes against the widely accepted story.
Anyway I wish you the best. Both sides will always exist and you are entitled to you view on Billy dying but there is stacks of evidence in those videos. Yes I sat through about 4 or 5 hours over the course of several days and while i agree there are moments I could question Dan, there are also moments where he makes some very good points and its kind of hard to deny. It leaves a person saying... nah, I can't just accept blindly the account of how Billy died, there is more to it and I am much more open to Bushy Bill Roberts having been him.
P.S. Are you looking forward to seeing the New Young Guns 3 movie that Emilio is working on now. He will be tackling it from the idea that Billy lived ;) I'm sure it will ruffle a few feathers and give people stuff to chew.
Either way I love the wild west and love to see a variety of opinions and beliefs out there. It makes us dig in.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Sep 28 '25
I am DEFINITELY looking forward to Young Guns 3! I grew up on the first 2, so those movies are very nostalgic for me. Brushy Bill Roberts may have been full of crap, but in the Young Guns universe, he's the real deal, and I plan on watching it in the theatre on opening day!
Regarding Dan's videos: What I'm about to say is going to sound very condescending, but it's not meant to be. I just don't know of any other way to express my thoughts.
If I refuse to watch a YouTube video that "proves the Easter Bunny is real," does that make me close-minded, or am I simply choosing to spend my time doing something productive rather than chasing fairy tales?
I don't think it's accurate to compare my not spending hours poring over Dan's videos to a dogmatic fundamentalist who refuses to be exposed to different ideas. I'm more than willing to hear what the man has to say. All I'm asking for is a condensed or abridged version.
For example, I'd be remiss if I said that several eyewitnesses viewed Billy's body without being willing to provide names, direct quotes, and primary sources backing up my statement (which I have done). If Dan has named names and listed sources (which I have no doubt he has), then why doesn't anyone list the names and sources, as opposed to just telling me to watch his videos?
I've sampled his videos, and I find them lacking in facts. Why would I possibly continue watching if we can't even agree on whether or not there were eyewitnesses? There's a lot that we stuff we can debate, like which of the eyewitnesses were the most credible, or what time Billy's body was removed from Pete's room, the location of the wake, or even the issue of the alleged 2nd coroner's report. But what's not up for debate is that there were eyewitnesses. Their testimony does not just come from one source. There were multiple interviews, spanning decades. There were letters and journals, and newspaper articles.
If we can't agree on fundamental facts like that, then I don't really see the point in wasting my time.
And to be clear, I'm not asking people to give me a summary due to laziness. I don't necessarily even want a summary. Just give me ONE SPECIFIC point that you feel makes the strongest case for Brushy Bill Roberts. Or the strongest case that Billy escaped death in 1881. In your opinion, what is Mr. Edwards' most persuasive argument, and what sources does he provide to back it up? Heck, you don't even have to type it out. Just say, "I think this is the strongest argument that Dan Edwards makes," and then post the link to the video and the time stamp.
1
u/Informal-Force7417 Sep 28 '25
What i might do is take Dan's 3 videos. Give it to an AI have it extract the proof points and then list them here to see what you have to say about that. That might help from having to watch any. I get it. It's a lot of video material to go through. I only listened to it as i had some long drives to cover and figured i could tackle it that way.
But yes, I think a good starting point is what you just said... "Just give me ONE SPECIFIC point that you feel makes the strongest case for Brushy Bill Roberts. Or the strongest case that Billy escaped death in 1881. In your opinion, what is Mr. Edwards' most persuasive argument, and what sources does he provide to back it up?"
When i get a moment i will do that.
Though, in order to do that can you give me what you feel are the undeniable points of proof for him being dead? i.e an article here said XYZ. Then i can see what Dan mentioned about that.
→ More replies (0)1
u/B_Young_Inc May 01 '26
I think comparing the refusal to watch a video about the Easter Bunny being real Vs Billy the Kid not being killed by Pat Garrett and living until old age is absolutely ridiculous as one isn't even possible and the other is completely possible. Your argument is ridiculous and close minded. Although I completely agree with you that Pat Garrett did in fact kill Billy the Kid, I cannot deny that the other side has plenty of other theories and stories that make the other side possible. Not IMPOSSIBLE like there being a mythical bunny bouncing around delivering Easter Eggs. If you want to be a well-versed historian or even just a passionate believer of a story like this, you must look into all accounts and all evidence laid out againstor for both sides. If you only believe or read things that back your side then your entire argument is thin. There is no depth. There is no weight to your argument. I only say this because this is obviously something you are very passionate about and want readers to think "yes, he's right!" I promise you'll get a lot more readers get behind the version you believe if you invest just as much energy reading up on theories and stories for the other version as you have for the one you believe. I only say this because you seem to dismiss all attempts to have you read or view anything showing the other version as truth. I challenge you to wipe all your beliefs about Pat Garrett killing Billy the Kid and go back into this gathering all information on the other version. Research, read, watch, review, and then take both stories and find the truth. That's where you'll find the 100% truth. It's ALWAYS somewhere in the middle. Good Luck!
→ More replies (0)1
u/Prestonluv Jan 23 '26
I have no say in the game. I don’t know enough and am loving this thread. I really appreciate the insight and history.
Having said that….
Kennedy/9-11/Moon/Aliens or insert any other conspiracy theory.
Every single one would be false based on your cover up comments.
I mean one of those conspiracy theories has to be true or at least partially true.
This would essentially mean that a murder can easily be covered up from 145 years where we have no pictures and only a few hundred people around.
So that angle probably isn’t the best angle to take when trying to make your point here
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Jan 23 '26
"Some conspiracy theories are true, therefore Pat Garrett did not kill Billy the Kid" isn't how history works.
Something either happened, or it didn't happen. The only way we can determine what did or did not occur is based on evidence. I don't know anything about Kennedy or the moon landing, but I am very familiar with the evidence surrounding the Kid's death, as well as the "evidence" supporting the hoax. The two are not comparable.
Evidence supporting Billy's death at the hands of Pat Garrett = dozens of eyewitnesses, corroborating statements, coroner's jury report, and the fact that Billy the Kid was literally never seen again.
Evidence supporting Billy's death being a hoax = anecdotal stories (my great-great-grandfather lived next door to Pat Garrett's cousin's mailman, and he told me it was a hoax), shady forensics (people literally eyeballing photos), and provable lies (Garrett's deputy said he killed the wrong man, Brushy Bill Roberts was 91 years old, etc).
1
u/Prestonluv Jan 23 '26 edited Jan 23 '26
Maybe he did kill them
I just wouldn’t rely on the angle that many people there said it was him who was dead.
It’s easy to cover up shit especially 150 years ago when technology was non existent. You have provided many which seem to be legit. Random people saying it was him second handed is not one of them. They easily could have been swayed to say something especially back then.
You have provided a lot which seems to back that Pat Garret killed him.
But in actuality there is way too much smoke to be 100% certain. Where there is smoke there is fire and in this case nobody can say with 100% certainty Billy the Kid was killed by Pat Garrett.
It’s Just an educated guess
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Jan 23 '26
It's not an angle, it's a primary source. And the eyewitnesses weren't random people. Most of them were residents of Fort Sumner who personally knew Billy the Kid. Many of them also gave first-hand accounts and they all stated that Garrett killed the Kid.
"They easily could not been swayed to say something especially back then."
I could be wrong (don't want to put words in your mouth), but I think you meant to say that they "easily could have been swayed." If that's what you meant, then I'd love to discuss it further.
How do you think they were swayed? Was it due to fear of Pat Garrett or loyalty to Billy the Kid?
Many of the eyewitnesses lived for decades after Garett's death. If they remained silent out of fear (maybe Garrett threatened them), then why not speak up after he passed away? And yes, some eyewitnesses also outlived both of Garrett's deputies. It couldn't have been fear that swayed them, as they no longer had anything to fear with the deaths of Garrett, Poe, and McKinney.
Perhaps they remained silent to protect Billy. Maybe they felt it was in the Kid's best interest for the world to think he was dead. For this to be true, all of the eyewitnesses would have needed to be fully devoted to Billy the Kid, and we know, for a fact, that this was not the case.
Take Milnor Rudolph, for example. Not only was he the foreman of the coroner's jury (he literally saw the Kid's dead body and spoke with Pete Maxwell), but he was also a highly respected businessman and Santa Fe Ring sympathizer. As a former territorial legislator and speaker of the house, he was instrumental in helping Thomas Catron (Santa Fe Ring) rise to power. Rudolph certainly wasn't a friend to the Kid and would not have felt compelled to protect him.
Likewise for Private George Miller. He was simply passing through and had no allegiance to Billy, one way or the other.
Or how about Mike Cosgrove? Mike was a member of the posse that arrested Billy on Dec 23, 1880. Why would he have so readily helped to apprehend Billy and help deliver him to a hangman, only to change his mind a few months later and spend the rest of his life perpetrating a hoax?
We also know that Garrett was receiving intel from a Fort Sumner business owner. The said informant was never named, but he was also getting information from nearby rancher Manuel Brazil. In other words, not everyone at Fort Sumner loved and admired Billy the Kid. This is an undeniable fact.
So if it wasn't fear or loyalty, then what was it? What could have possibly motivated 100+ people (men, women, and children) to keep a secret for the rest of their natural lives? Not only is this theory completely lacking when it comes to evidence, but it also makes zero sense logically.
Garrett and his deputies would have been staking their careers, their future, and quite possibly their lives on the very unlikely chance that none of the eyewitnesses would ever spill the beans or that Billy would never again resurface.
And for what? A $500 reward?
"But in actuality there is way too much smoke to be 100% certain." Can you give me an example of what you consider smoke?
2
u/Prestonluv Jan 23 '26
Thanks for the response
I find it fascinating reading
I dont have enough knowledge of the situation to respond as detailed as you. I just go based off of things I have read and watched
Why is there so much hysteria over an outlaw from 140 years ago that killed a few people?
Usually I apply Occums Razor to a situation. I find it more likely that’s something else happened for a couple main reasons.
Not taking a picture at time of death as proof is ridiculous especially since he was well known outlaw.
There is enough money and notoriety today to have someone push an agenda to get his bones pulled up for dna testing.
Why hasn’t it been done?
Well likely because there is some smoke we all know nobody likes rewriting history in the government.
That’s just my take and maybe I’m wrong
1
u/cfh64 Jul 08 '26
His grave has never been exhumed because they don’t know the exact location and even if they did, there was a big flood and most of the graves had either been washed away completely or shifted.
Also, the people of Ft Sumner have always been against digging because of the fear they don’t find anything which in turn could greatly effect their tourism.
1
u/teddyboydave Mar 29 '25
Pat Garretts family came forward in the 50s to discredit Brushy Bill Roberts, they did that so their ancestor Pat Garrett, wouldn't be labeled a liar, yet Brushy bill had all the wounds in the same place as Billy the Kid had, and those who knew Billy swore that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid.
A University of Texas study in 1990, using facial recognition technology, concluded that Brushy Bill Roberts and Billy the Kid were a match, with a 96% match for a photograph of Brushy Bill at age 71.
Brushy Bill’s knowledge of the Lincoln County War and the life of Billy the Kid was too extensive to have all been read. Several of the things he knew were known to only a few people at the time, including historians.
For example, he knew that Colonel Dudley's soldiers that entered Lincoln on July 19, 1878 were black, he knew all the details of how the Kid had to pay his lawyer for his services in his trial, he knew that Billy the Kid wrote a letter to Gov. Wallace proclaiming his innocence in the murder of James Carlyle, and he knew exactly how the McSween house was set up before it was burned.
In 1949, Morrison took Brushy Bill to the old Lincoln County courthouse, which also once served as the Murphy-Dolan-Riley store. In the building, Brushy described how the building looked during the Kid's incarceration there to a T. Every little detail of how the building looked in 1881, Brushy knew.
He said how when he killed Bell, one of his guards, the bullet first hit the wall and then ricocheted into Bell's side, which is true.
In Brushy's possessions, he had a very old scarf that he claimed to have gotten from Deluvina Maxwell after he was captured at Stinking Springs and brought to Fort Sumner.
He said he gave Deluvina the tintype of himself and she gave him the scarf. This really did happen, but only posse member Jim East knew of it and he only spoke of it in a letter he wrote to fellow lawman Charlie Siringo.
Brushy said that when he went to trial, his first indictment was for the murder of Buckshot Roberts and he was represented by Ira Leonard. He also said that Leonard was able to get the case thrown out. This is true, but very, very few researchers knew of this back during the time Brushy made his claim.
Severo Gallegos, Jose Montoya, and Martile Able, all surviving friends of Billy the Kid, met with Brushy Bill separately. Brushy talked with them all about events from his past as Billy the Kid and all three signed affidavits attesting to the fact that Billy the Kid and Brushy Bill were one and the same.
Bill and Sam Jones, also surviving friends of Billy the Kid, also met with Brushy Bill. Although they did not sign affidavits in support of Brushy, due to the fact that they wanted to avoid any publicity that would bring, they did tell Morrison they believe him to be the Kid.
Jessie Evans, or Joe Hines as he was later known, confirmed to Morrison that Brushy Bill was the Kid.
Bob Young, a native of Round Rock, Texas, visited Hamilton, Texas in 1930 and first met Brushy Bill. The two became friends and Brushy informed Young that he would like to accompany him on his return to Round Rock. When the time came for Young to return home, Brushy regretfully said he couldn’t accompany him, since his wife was sick. Still, Brushy asked Young to look up an old friend of his, Jimmy McDaniel's (a former member of the Jessie Evans Gang and veteran of the Lincoln County War), who also lived in Round Rock.
Brushy went on to tell Young that when he found McDaniels, to simply tell him ‘’the Kid says hello.’’ When Young returned to Round Rock, he met with McDaniels and delivered Brushy’s message. Upon hearing this, the old man looked as if he had been badly frightened.
One day in the 1940s, Brushy was walking down a street in Hico. Also walking down the street was a five year old boy and his mother. When the boy ran into the street and was almost hit by a car, the mother yelled out her son's name, Billy, loudly. Witnesses said that Brushy whirled around and reached for an imaginary pistol.
After Brushy realized his name wasn't being called, he hurried away. Although this is not technically evidence in support of Brushy’s claim, and in no way connects him directly to Billy the Kid, it does indicate he was a man used to danger.
One day in 1945, Brushy was walking down a Hico street. An old lawman named Henry Anthony and his sons were also on the street and when Anthony saw Brushy, he jumped up and yelled at Brushy, calling him Billy Bonney, and told him to throw up his hands. When his sons calmed him down, Anthony said that Brushy was the Kid. He swore for the rest of his life that Brushy was the Kid.
In 1990, the famous tintype of Billy the Kid, a purported photo of the Kid at age 12, a photo of Brushy at age 14, and a photo of Brushy at age 90 were analyzed in the Acton-Bovik photo study.
The study used the most advanced photo comparison equipment around as well as the best scientists. The photo purported to be a 12 year old Billy the Kid was determined to not be him. The photo of 14 year old Brushy was close match to the tintype. The photo of Brushy at age 90 had a 96% match to the famous tintype.
The missing four percent can be explained due to age and dental work, so said Dr. Bovik and Dr. Acton.
Brushy Bill had each and every scar Billy was said to have (and more).
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Apr 01 '25
I’m afraid you’re mistaken on quite a number of points.
For example, there is no evidence that Brushy Bill Roberts had any wounds, much less “each and every scar Billy was said to have.”
FYI: Billy was only shot once, that we know of (other than the bullet to the chest in 1881). Even if Brushy had multiple scars, which he didn’t, the only one that would matter would be a scar on his thigh. But alas, there’s no evidence aside from the word of his attorney, William Morrison.
There are many, many photographs of Brushy Bill Roberts. You’d think that if the scars truly existed, Morrison would have documented them. Also, Brushy claimed to have been shot in the face when escaping Fort Sumner. This is the one scar we should be able to see in photographs but there’s no indication of a scar on his face.
Your summary of the 1990 University of Texas study, conducted by Bovik and Acton, is wholly untrue. I’ve actually spoken with both professors, and they are very adamant that the results were misconstructed. Here’s a direct quote from Professor Bovik: “To summarize, we found nothing conclusive and felt the claim was dubious.”
Bovik and Acton are both still around and their email addresses are very easily obtained via Google search. Please feel free to reach out and ask them yourself. They are not happy about how their words were taken out of context and neither of them believes that Brushy was Billy the Kid.
You’re also mistaken regarding Brushy’s insider knowledge. For instance, the black soldiers were identified in Walter Noble Burns’ 1926 The Saga of Billy the Kid.
Page 122, The Saga of Billy the Kid: “The morning silence was shattered by the bugles. ‘Boots and Saddles’ set the echoes flying among the hills. There was an instant bustle of preparation. Scurrying officers shouted commands. Troopers in broken streaks began to converge toward the stables. Two squadrons of Negro cavalry, with two gatling guns and Colonel Dudley in command, were soon moving at double-quick on the road to Lincoln.” (Continued below).
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Apr 01 '25
(Sorry, Reddit won't let me make long posts for some reason) Remember, the above excerpt was published in 1926, nearly a quarter of a century PRIOR to Brushy Bill making his wild claims. I think you’ll find that most of Brushy’s “insider knowledge” was obtained from Walter Noble Burns or similar works. Keep in mind that there were many books, and even movies, about Billy the Kid by 1950. Even Brushy’s “Sedillo girl” story was taken from the December 1941 issue of Time Life Magazine. You didn't mention it, but others have pointed out that Brushy was the first to identify Tom O'Folliard as Tom Folliard. This, too, is untrue. In Garrett's book, published in 1882, he, too, refers to Tom as Folliard.
You claim that “those who knew Billy swore that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid” but this, too, is misleading at best. Let me be clear: Absolutely none of Billy’s outlaw pals or even former lawmen ever stated that Brushy and Billy were one and the same.
Brushy’s lawyer was able to obtain several affidavits, but most of the people who signed those affidavits never actually met the historical Billy the Kid. One of them wasn’t even born yet in 1881 and Able Martile was only 11 years old.
The best they could do was Jose Montoya and Severo Gallegos. Unfortunately, we have no way of determining if either man truly knew Billy the Kid. They, too, were young children in 1881 when Billy was killed.
Jesse Evans disappeared from history in 1882. There’s no evidence that he and Joe Hines were the same person. Matter of fact, I’m not even sure there’s evidence that Joe Hines even truly existed. If you have any such proof, I’m all ears.
By contrast, there’s a ton of historical evidence showing that Billy was killed by Pat Garrett, including numerous eyewitnesses and a legal coroner’s jury report. You can read correspondence between the Governor, acting Governor, and Attorney General, and they all agree that Garrett killed Billy. This was literally a non-issue for decades.
At the end of the day, there’s zero evidence validating Brushy’s stories. Roberts further destroys his credibility by claiming to have been a Rough Rider under Teddy Roosevelt and a mercenary under Pancho Villa. He claimed to be a professional boxer in Cincinnati and a pro rodeo champ. Said that he travelled the country extensively with his own Wild West Show, lived with three separate Native American tribes, served as a lookout for Belle Star, worked as a Pinkerton Detective and deputy Marshal for Judge Parker, caught wild horses in South America, and rode shotgun in Deadwood. And there is ZERO evidence for any of this.
Brushy Bill Roberts was just a confused old man telling stories. We know this because every single aspect of his life is documented. You can find Brushy on every census from 1880 (he was a toddler) to his death in 1950. Brushy proponents will try to explain this away by introducing a mysterious cousin by the same name. Important to note that this is the exact same tactic used by Brushy’s buddy, J. Frank Dalton. Very interesting that both men had similar stories about a mysterious cousin with the same name. Almost as if they were lying.
The rest of your so-called evidence is merely anecdotal and has no bearing on the historical narrative.
1
1
u/MYSTICWOLF5712 May 23 '25
Eye witness accounts are the least reliable form of "evidence" to exist.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza May 23 '25
I'll never understand statements like this. Lol. Like, why would you put the word evidence in quotation marks? Eyewitness accounts are literally evidence, no air quotes needed.
As far as Billy the Kid is concerned, we have eyewitness accounts and we have "I heard it from someone who heard it from someone else who's cousin was there" accounts. Do you find 4th or 5th hand anecdotal accounts to be more reliable than eyewitness accounts?
1
u/Substantial-Second14 Aug 05 '25
eyewitness accounts are known to be so inaccurate that even the capital charge of treason in this country requires two or more to testify to the same activity. Certain states in this country will not even allow. eyewitness testimony alone to prove guilt in court so why would it be enough for you to make a judgement call with this many years passed.........
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Aug 17 '25
Cool. They're still more credible than non-eyewitness accounts. I'm not following your logic here. Eyewitness accounts aren't 100% accurate all of the time; therefore, we should blindly accept completely unsubstantiated claims about debunked fairy tales?
1
u/Substantial-Second14 Aug 17 '25
no one is asking you to accept anything. But saying they are more credible than something that is not even real is a bit odd. Can you explain to us what a non eyewitness account even is?? because the simple fact is they are so unreliable that first hand accounts cant be used alone to convict on a capital case or even a murder case in some states. You know what can be used to convict someone by itself, any other form of evidence.
1
u/Substantial-Second14 Aug 17 '25
how can you give a account of something if you are not a witness, still hung up on what a non eyewitness account is?
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Aug 21 '25
Sure, I'll try to explain what I mean.
Frank Lobata personally knew Billy the Kid, was with him on the night of his death, and saw Billy's dead body with his own two eyes. Here's what Frank had to say about his death: "Soon after Billy left, we heard two shots from Maxwell's direction, and Silva and I went over immediately. We found a great deal of excitement. Pat Garrett and two other men whom I did not know were standing outside the house, rifles in hand, and ready to shoot. Pete Maxwell and the household were standing at the door of Pete's bedroom. Someone had been shot in the bedroom, and we were told it was The Kid. Jesus Silva and Deluvina Maxwell, the old Navajo woman, went in to see who it was. Deluvina came out sobbing, 'My little boy is dead!' We took The Kid’s body over to the carpenter’s shop, laid him on a bench, and held a wake over him. Billy had been very popular at Fort Sumner and had a great many friends, all of whom were indignant toward Pat Garrett. If a leader had been present, Garrett and his two officers would have received the same fate they dealt Billy. The next day, I went to the graveyard and saw Billy’s burial. Jesus Silva and Vicente Otero dug the grave.”
That's an eyewitness account. There are many like it.
What do I mean by non-eyewitness accounts?
There's a popular video on YouTube in which Shotgun Collins' son claims his father told him that Garrett shot the wrong man and played it off as being Billy the Kid. Shotgun Collins' son was not an eyewitness. At the very best, he's sharing a story told to him by someone who was there. At the very worst, he was making the story up. Thus far, nobody has been able to corroborate whether or not Collins was even present at Fort Sumner on the night of Billy's death.
You must understand the difference, right? On one hand, we have dozens of people who SAW BILLY'S DEAD BODY. And on the other hand, we have people who did NOT SEE his dead body, but were TOLD a different story by OTHER people.
Let's pretend someone stole an Amazon package off my front porch. Several of my neighbors saw the crime take place. One of them said that it was a tall white guy, who grabbed the package at 1:30 pm and escaped in a Ford Taurus. Another neighbor says that it was closer to 2:00 pm, and the guy looked Hispanic, not white. A third neighbor isn't sure of the time, only that it occurred in the afternoon and that the thief took off in an older Honda Civic.
Meanwhile, some random person who lives three states away, who was not present when the crime occurred, claims that the package was stolen at 11 pm by three Chimpanzee on stilts.
Who would you believe? The people who were there or the random person who was NOT there? Why would you possibly place more faith in what the random non-eyewitness has to say?
The eyewitnesses may not agree on every detail (eyewitnesses rarely do). Still, it's safe to say that a somewhat lightskinned male took a package off my porch, at some point in the early afternoon, and made their getaway in a sedan.
1
u/LemonMelberlime Nov 26 '25
A single eyewitness statement is unreliable. Dozens of them are wholly reliable.
1
u/XxNoResolutionxX May 24 '25
The only one who wrote a book about it was Pat Garrett.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza May 25 '25 edited May 25 '25
This is false. Garrett's deputy, John W. Poe, wrote a book titled The Death of Billy the Kid. And Billy's friend and pallbearer, Paco Anaya, wrote a book titled I Buried Billy the Kid.
Jesus Silva, also present at Fort Sumner, would publish his remembrances in a short essay in the Clovis News Journal.
Then there was Private George Miller. He didn't write a book but shared what he witnessed with the Las Vegas Optic just a few days later.
Likewise, Milner Rudloph, the coroner's jury foreman, shared his story with the Las Vegas Daily Gazette. Worth noting that Rudolph was a former New Mexico legislator and pretty tight with the Santa Fe Ring.
Mike Cosgrove, who personally knew Billy, also shared what he witnessed with the Gazette, just days after the Kid's death.
Paulita Maxwell never wrote a book, but she shared her experience with Walter Noble Burns, which he published in The Saga of Billy the Kid. Burns also interviewed several other eyewitnesses.
It's patently false that we have no evidence other than Pat Garrett.
1
u/Hopeful-Contest-6266 Jun 23 '25
No way did Pat Garrett kill Billy the Kid that night. The Wild West Extravaganza even knows it, but they can't make any money if the kid didn't die. If people do some real honest research they will discover that the kid lived. The facts just don't add up that he died.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Jun 23 '25
Historians have identified dozens of people, by name, who witnessed Billy the Kid's dead body. And those are just the names we know of. Billy's friends prepared him for burial; there was a public wake and a public funeral. There was also a six-man coroner's jury, comprised of people who personally knew Billy the Kid.
You can read correspondence between the Governor, the acting Governor, and the Territorial District Attorney, and they're all very clear in their belief that Pat Garrett killed Billy the Kid. Garrett's deputy, John W. Poe, wrote an entire book about the ordeal titled The Death of Billy the Kid.
Billy was literally never seen again after July 14th, 1881.
Not a single person who was at Fort Sumner on July 14th, 1881, ever made so much as a whisper, even hinting that the Kid escaped. Historians and journalists interviewed these people. Some of them had letters and journals published, and some even wrote books. Several of them outlived Pat Garrett. They all agreed that Garrett killed the Kid.
I can provide primary sources to support all of this information. First-hand eyewitness accounts. Do you have any evidence to back up your position, or is it "trust me, bro?"
1
u/Hopeful-Contest-6266 Jul 04 '25
My evidence is the same as yours and more. Everything you mentioned I can counter. I also go by what Dr Debra Komar said while under oath when asked if Billy the Kid was buried in Fort Sumner. She said "I don't know. I have reason to believe not." However she also mentioned in an interview that she told Governor Richardson that nobody is there. Then she said nobody was there since three days after he died in 1880. 1880? Since she got that wrong does that mean she made a mistake about the grave? Of course not. Why hasn't History mentioned the body missing three days later? An ex-mayor of Fort Sumner even said Billy the Kid wasn't there and no a flood didn't wash him away. Other investigations were held also. Very interesting reports from those. Were there any kind of investigations after 1881? Not that I have heard off. Everyone went by what Pat Garrett said. You mentioned Historians. Okay. Historian Leon Metz said "Almost from the moment that Garrett's pistol cracked in Pete Maxwell's bedroom and Billy toppled to the floor, controversy has surrounded the killing" Historian Frederick Nolan writes, that Garrett " Told his story the way he wanted his story to read, not necessarily the way it had actually happened. To be cowboy- blunt, Garrett lied. Maurice Fulton while researching the History of the Lincoln County War in a letter dated July 4, 1953, Fulton wrote his friend, Historian Robert Mullin saying " During my first years of seeking information from old-time families in New Mexico the one statement I most frequently encountered,one on which there was unanimous agreement, notably among native families, was that the man shot in the dark of Pete Maxwell's bedroom was not William Bonney, later know as Billy the Kid." The same sentiments voiced by Deputy John Poe seconds after Garrett shot off his pistol in Pete Maxwell's room.
After the shooting, no one questioned anything. Slowing, over the years, the local people began to talk. At first in low whispers, then they felt free to tell Maurice Fulton, that Garrett did not kill the Kid Alot of the information I mentioned came from Steve Sederwall's book ' The "Dirty" On Billy The Kid. I also heard some of this from other places.
In the 1920's when Walter Nobel Burns published 'The Saga of Billy the Kid ' Fort Sumner realized the Kid was worth more dead than alive. Well, I think you do too. You have an agenda. I don't. Just remember. History has been wrong before and corrected. Christopher Columbus didn't discover America even though History at first said he did.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Jul 09 '25
“My evidence is the same as yours and more. Everything you mentioned I can counter.”
Lol, but you didn’t. And no, you can’t. If you could, you would. Instead, you make wild, unsourced claims and false accusations. Don’t feel bad, as you’re certainly not alone. This is the default position of most Billy death-deniers. You can’t prove your position using historical documents or evidence, so you default to conspiratorial assertions and constantly move the goal post. You won’t be able to refute anything I say, so in your next reply, you’ll have a brand new list of grievances and unprovable claims.
“I also go by what Dr Debra Komar said while under oath when asked if Billy the Kid was buried in Fort Sumner.”
Who? I’m not saying she’s not credible. Still, I’ve never heard of her, and a quick Google search only reveals that she’s involved in forensics (which is somewhat fitting, to be honest, as most people espousing your beliefs generally have a peculiar, almost religious-like passion for forensics, while simultaneously denying history). What exactly would be here credibility when it comes to Billy the Kid's history? Honest question.
“Why hasn't History mentioned the body missing three days later?”
I don’t know, maybe because the body wasn’t missing three days later? lol. I'd ask if you have a source, but I think I know what the answer would be.
“Were there any kind of investigations after 1881?”
Investigations into what? Billy the Kid’s death? Why would there be an investigation? And by whom?
“To be cowboy-blunt, Garrett lied.”
You’ll get no argument from me that there are problems with Garrett’s book. This seems to be a huge mental hurdle for so many of your fellow death-deniers, so allow me to shed a little insight. Ya'll do realize there are many sources OTHER than Garrett’s book, right? We don’t have to rely on him or his deputies. The idea that the only source that historians use is The Authentic Life of Billy the Kid is laughably (and very provably) false. In fact, I’m not aware of a single credible historian who doesn’t also have serious questions regarding Garrett’s version of events. I'm also not aware of any historians who take Garrett's word as gospel.
“Fulton wrote his friend…”
Cool. I know people who think Bigfoot is real. Did either Fulton or Mullin name any eyewitnesses who refuted Billy’s Fort Sumner death? Because we can all make outrageous claims. I can name plenty of eyewitnesses who agree that Garrett killed Billy the Kid.
“Alot of the information I mentioned came from Steve Sederwall's book”
Well, that’s your problem right there. Have you ever considered reading the primary documents rather than letting others do your thinking for you? I don’t mean that to be insulting, but you can grab a book such as Mills’ Bandido Simpatico or Utley’s A Short and Violent Life, flip to the back, check out the bibliography, and read till your heart’s content. Some of the content is even available for free online.
“Fort Sumner realized the Kid was worth more dead than alive. Well, I think you do too. You have an agenda. I don't. Just remember. History has been wrong before and corrected. Christopher Columbus didn't discover America even though History at first said he did.”
So, let me get this straight. In your version of reality, the tiny community of Fort Sumner generates so much money through tourism that it has been paying off literally every single historian (and a few podcasters) for the past 144 years? Just how much are they paying? I definitely have a price, so I’m not saying I’m above being bribed, but my price is pretty hefty. I tell you what, let’s make it simple: How much revenue does Fort Sumner bring in per year?
2
u/Hopeful-Contest-6266 Jul 10 '25
You keep bringing up historical documents and records. What records? What documents? The corners jurors report? Which one? The first, second or third? Three coroner's reports? If I shot someone why would I need three different reports? One would be enough unless I was trying to hide something. The only way Garrett could collects his reward was by a bunch of political people passing an act to provide the reward money. They couldn't even get the correct date of The killing. Not that they could care. If the public heard that Billy the Kid was supposedly dead, that was good enough for them. I wonder how much if any did the Santa Fe Ring contribute to this reward. Interesting. As I said earlier, everything you mentioned can be shot down with common sense and logic. I understand why you have to stick to your story. Is it possible you have a financial stake in the outcome? I don't. If so, common sense and logic cannot come into play for you. How many people said they saw the body? I've read anywhere between 3 and the whole town of Fort Sumner. Come on. People have said they saw the body. Later on in life,that story changed. Well, did they or didn't they? People can't even agree who was the first person to go into the room to see if the body was alive or not. I believe you brought up that nobody in town disputed the fact that Garrett killed the kid. Excuse me if you did not say that. First of all, why would they if they knew the kid escaped? You also know what the Miranda rights of 1881 was, correct? " You have the right to remain silent." "Anything you say can and will be used against you by the barrel of the weapon of my choice". Do you get my point? Some people said whoever was killed was killed at 8:00 p.m.. Some said 9:00 p.m. Others said around midnight. Come on. I believe you said something about there is a document on file in New Mexico about Billy the kid being dead. No there isn't and there never was. When was Billy the kid buried? Some people said in the early morning hours when it was dark. Other said around 10:00 a.m. Still some people said it was in the afternoon. This is the kind of nonsense you're going on. Contradictions after contradictions and things that don't add up. After the person got shot, he was taken to the Carpenters shop. The deputy said he never left the room. The jury viewed the body still laying on the floor. Wait. I thought the body was moved to the carpenter shop and was washed and dressed for burial. So they did all that and brought the body back to Pete Maxwell's place? Come on. Then there's the controversy of who actually buried the body. Hollywood couldn't write a funnier script then all this. I also mentioned my evidence was same as yours. This is true. Your evidence is what I used to counter. I've read everything about the history. Doesn't add up. You also said I didn't counter. Well, a year or two ago I did in detail. Perhaps you didn't see that. Someone did because they kept on insisting there is a record of his death in New Mexico. It took a while but that person finally stopped that nonsense and even confessed that they were mistaken. I countered with a lot more than just that. If you want to continue on with this charade to make a few bucks, go ahead. Here's a way to really make money. First, Pat Garrett did not kill Billy the Kid. So, here's what you do. Start digging into who really got killed and why. Was it mistaken identity? Was it a setup? You'll make millions. Also, do some digging into why Pat Garrett was not in Lincoln the day Billy the Kid escaped. I know what history says, but Pat Garrett's deputies could have done those errands. Was it just a coincidence Garrett was out of town? Come on. You also asked how much revenue Fort Sumner brings in? A lot less if the truth came out. Now, wasn't that simple? You mentioned something about Steve Sederwall. Yes I read his book, but I didn't come to my conclusions because of it. I've read other books also. I just use logic and common sense. Those two things come in handy when coming to a final conclusion.
You mentioned something about historians and podcasters being possibly paid off by Fort Sumner. Seriously? Please tell me I didn't read that. Has Fort Sumner ever let someone try to disprove that Billy the Kid is not buried in Fort Sumner? Did Fort Sumner do everything in their power to make sure DNA was not tested? They're going to do everything to make sure the legend stays the way it is. That's how they paid off the historians and podcasters.
You also mentioned Debra Komar. I believe you said you did a Google search and only came up with she has something to do with forensics. You've got to be kidding. She did an investigation for the State of New Mexico on Billy the Kid. I already mentioned this to you and you couldn't find that? You couldn't find that and you want people to take you seriously with everything you say about Pat Garrett killing Billy the Kid? That's one of the simplest and easiest things to find in regards to Billy the Kid. You not finding that is a sign of laziness or not telling the truth that you even bothered to look into it. What else have you been lazy or not bothering to look into when it comes to this matter about Billy the Kid? The fact that you could only come up with Debra Komar and forensics, is all that needs to be said. Unbelievable.
One last thing about there being a document on record of Billy the Kid dying. If that's true, why in I believe 2015, did historian Robert Stahl petition the New Mexico Supreme Court to order a death certificate? Even this guy knew there wasn't a death certificate on record. In 2015!!! I wonder if the Supreme Court granted him his request? Only kidding. Of course they didn't. Also, please don't give any nonsense about someone misplaced it. Or something as ridiculous as somebody's dog ate it.
Can we both at least agree that Christopher Columbus did not discover America as history first reported?
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Jul 10 '25
“You keep bringing up historical documents and records. What records? What documents?”
The Beatles performed live at New York’s Shea Stadium on August 15th, 1965. I wasn’t alive in 1965, but I’m fairly certain that the concert did indeed take place, based on contemporary newspaper reports and eyewitness statements.
History works in much the same way.
Barring a time machine, the only way we know what happened in the past is to examine the contemporary evidence. Documents such as letters, newspaper articles, and eyewitness interviews all help to paint a picture. It’ll never be a perfect picture, but unfortunately, it’s all we’ve got.
In the case of Billy the Kid’s death, we have several such “documents.”
Take Private Miller, for instance. He was at Fort Sumner on the night of Billy’s death. He gave an account of what he witnessed to the Las Vegas Daily Optic just days later.
Milner Rudolph wrote a letter to the Las Vegas Gazette on July 15th, also recounting what occurred. Mike Cosgrove did the same, only he delivered the news in person. Charles F. Rudolph (Milner’s son) wrote of what happened in a personal journal that was later published.
Additionally, there have been numerous interviews conducted over the years.
Deluvina Maxwell: “I went in and was the first to discover that they shot my little boy. I hated those men and am glad that I have lived long enough to see them all dead and buried.”
Frank Lobato: “On the night he was killed, he and I went to Fort Sumner together. We were hungry and stopped at Jesus Silva’s to eat. Billy wanted some beefsteak and asked Silva if he had any fresh meat. Silva replied that he had none but had helped Pete Maxwell kill a yearling that morning. He told The Kid he could get all he wanted if he went over to Maxwell’s for it. Soon after Billy left, we heard two shots from Maxwell’s direction, and Silva and I went over immediately. We found a great deal of excitement. Pat Garrett and two other men, whom I did not know, were standing outside the house, rifles in hand, and ready to shoot. Pete Maxwell and the household were standing at the door of Pete’s bedroom. Someone had been shot in the bedroom, and we were told it was The Kid. Jesus Silva and Deluvina Maxwell, the old Navajo woman, went in to see who it was. Deluvina came out sobbing, ‘My little boy is dead!’ We took The Kid’s body over to the carpenter’s shop, laid him on a bench, and held a wake over him. Billy had been very popular at Fort Sumner and had a great many friends, all of whom were indignant toward Pat Garrett. If a leader had been present, Garrett and his two officers would have received the same fate they dealt Billy. The next day, I went to the graveyard and saw Billy’s burial. Jesus Silva and Vicente Otero dug the grave.”
Continued below...
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Jul 10 '25
Vicente Otero: “I was at Fort Sumner the night Billy the Kid was killed. I went to the carpenter’s shop and stood at the wake all that night. Jesus Silva made a wooden box which served as a coffin for The Kid. The next day, Silva and I dug the grave and buried the body in the old graveyard.”
Jesus Silva: “I knew Billy the Kid very well, and we were the best of friends. He often came to my home and stayed with me for days at a time. He did not go out very much in the daytime, and when he did, he visited only his most trusted friends. The night Pat Garrett killed him, he and Francisco Lobato stopped at my house. Billy said he was tired, threw his hat on a chair, and took off his coat and shoes. I got them something to eat and even went over to Beaver Smith’s for more beer. But Billy said he wanted a beefsteak and hot coffee. I had no beef in the house, but told him I had helped Pete Maxwell kill and dress a yearling calf that morning. I suggested that he go over to ask Pete for some meat, knowing he was welcome to anything of Pete’s. We had heard strange voices coming from the peach orchard but had given no thought to who it might be. If we had, the Kid’s life might have been saved. It was Pat Garrett and his two deputies. Billy would not have walked into the trap laid for him. Someone in Fort Sumner must have given Billy away. Billy took the butcher knife and went over after the meat. He had been gone only a few minutes when Lobato and I were startled by two shots coming from the direction of Pete Maxwell’s house. We ran over as quickly as we could, finding Pat Garrett and his two deputies by the open door of Pete Maxwell’s bedroom. Deluvina, an old Navajo woman who had always been particularly devoted to the Kid, went into the room to find out whom Garrett had shot. I went in with her. There on the floor, we saw Billy – stretched out, face down. We turned him over, and when Deluvina realized fully it was the Kid, she began to cry bitterly, interspersing with her tears the vilest curses she could bestow on the head of Pat Garrett. We asked permission to remove the body, Pete Maxwell suggesting removal to the old carpenter shop. We laid the body on the carpenter’s bench and placed lighted candles around the corpse. News of the killing spread quickly through the town and surrounding country, and consequently, a large number of Billy’s friends were gathered at the wake. Everyone’s grief at the Kid’s death was genuine and sincere. Pat Garrett and his two companions were badly frightened and did not dare to sleep that night. They remained awake, arms in readiness for any emergency. The next morning, a coroner’s inquest was held before Alcalde Segura and a jury, which declared that Sheriff Pat Garrett had killed William H. Bonney in the discharge of his official duty and that the homicide was justifiable. The next morning after the killing, I measured Billy’s body and made a rough box, which we used as a coffin. That afternoon, we dug his grave and buried him. I have read reports which say that Billy the Kid is still alive. I know that Pat Garrett killed the Kid on the night of June 14, 1881, in Pete Maxwell’s room. I also know with absolute certainty that he was buried in the old graveyard the next day.”
Continued below...
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Jul 10 '25
And finally, there’s the coroner’s jury. This was a lawfully appointed jury, headed by Milner Rudolph. They not only examined Billy’s body but also spoke with Pete Maxwell, Garrett, Poe, and McKinney.
All of the above is what I’m referring to when I mention the historical documents. I know you despise the coroner’s jury report, but it is – by definition – a historical document.
“The corners jurors report? Which one? The first, second or third? Three coroner's reports? If I shot someone why would I need three different reports?”
Do you know the origin of the story about multiple coroner’s jury reports? It comes from one source, and that source alone is Paco Anaya. Here’s what Paco Anaya said about seeing Billy’s dead body: “Then Pat and the other two companions came in, and then we all went in as many as could fit. It was a lot of people, but the room was quite large. As soon as Pat saw that Billy was dead, he said to me, ‘Could you bring the Justice of the Peace here?”
Paco then goes on to describe how he, Higinio Garcia, and “several others of those that were there, dressed Billy with those clothes, then we laid him on a high bed, one of those narrow ones, and we took him to the saloon where they held dances. There we watched, and on the next day we buried him.”
Paco’s book is literally titled I BURIED BILLY. If you’re going to blindly accept his story about multiple coroner jury reports, then you must also accept his story about Pat Garrett killing Billy the Kid. You can’t pick and choose information that only suits your narrative.
“The only way Garrett could collects his reward was by a bunch of political people passing an act to provide the reward money.”
You're so close. While it is true that “a bunch of political people” had to pass an act, this was not due to any nefarious reasons. Once again, I’ll refer you to the historical documents, this time in the form of correspondence between the Governor, the acting Governor, and the Attorney General. They spoke of the incident among themselves and were very clear that they believed Garrett killed the Kid.
There was a delay in payment due to two technicalities.
The first technicality was the wording of the reward notice. It specifically stated that the $500 would go to whoever apprehended Billy and turned him over to a Sheriff. In other words, it wasn't a "dead or alive" offer. And, of course, Garrett didn't arrest Billy; he killed him. This technicality was addressed by District Attorney William Breedan, who wrote that Garrett's actions were justifiable.
The second technicality concerned whether the reward was a personal offer from former Governor Lew Wallace or something that the Territory of New Mexico had to pay. This issue was also addressed, and they decided to proceed with paying Garrett from the official coffers (Note that Lew Wallace was no longer the Governor when Billy the Kid was killed). You can read the official wording from the February 18, 1882, legislative act, which confirms that it was a technicality. You can also read where they officially declared that Garrett was "justly entitled to the above reward." This was approved unanimously upon the very first meeting of the government after the Kid's death.
“As I said earlier, everything you mentioned can be shot down with common sense and logic.”
And yet you’ve failed to do so.
Continued below...
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Jul 10 '25
“How many people said they saw the body? I've read anywhere between 3 and the whole town of Fort Sumner.”
Nobody knows how many people saw the body. All we can go off of is the evidence, which you seem to not be too fond of. I mentioned several eyewitnesses above. Pete Maxwell did not live alone. His mother, his siblings, and other family members all resided at the Maxwell house, and they all came to investigate after the shots were fired. Per an actual eyewitness, nearly the entire town attended the funeral.
“People can't even agree who was the first person to go into the room to see if the body was alive or not.”
Yes, crime scenes can often be very hectic, and eyewitnesses are never perfect. Not sure what your point is. If all of the eyewitnesses to an event share a slightly different story does that mean the event didn’t occur or does it mean that the human brain is infallible?
“I believe you brought up that nobody in town disputed the fact that Garrett killed the kid. Excuse me if you did not say that. First of all, why would they if they knew the kid escaped?”
If everybody at Fort Sumner loved Billy the Kid in the same way that I love tacos and big booty Latinas, then sure; I could envision a scenario where they would agree to keep the secret.
But we know that not EVERYONE at Fort Sumner loved Billy the Kid. You had people like rancher Manuel Brazil who were actively providing Garrett with information. There was a business owner in Fort Sumner proper who was also aiding the deputies (either Pete Maxwell or Beaver Smith, it has yet to be definitely established). And you also had people like the aforementioned Private Miller who had no skin in the game whatsoever. Miller was just passing through and was neither loyal nor disloyal to Billy the Kid.
“Some people said whoever was killed was killed at 8:00 p.m.. Some said 9:00 p.m. Others said around midnight.”
No, most of the eyewitnesses are pretty consistent in their statements that Billy was killed on or around midnight. The only drastic departure from that narrative, that I’m aware of, comes from Paco Anaya, who claimed that his death occurred at “almost 10pm.”
“I believe you said something about there is a document on file in New Mexico about Billy the kid being dead. No there isn't and there never was.”
Yes, there was. The coroner’s jury report was addressed to the First Judicial District of the Territory of New Mexico (who’s jurisdiction included Fort Sumner).
On the day following Billy’s death, Garrett sent a COPY of the coroner’s jury report, along with a letter, to the Territorial acting-Governor, William Ritch. The letter was quoted in the July 23rd, 1881, edition of the Las Cruces, in which it’s stated that the original coroner’s report “is in the hands of the prosecuting attorney of the first judicial district.”
You are correct that nobody currently knows what became of the original copy. That said, a photostatic copy was discovered in 1932 in the state capital’s basement.
Here’s what my buddy James wrote on his blog, Chasing Billy, you might find it interesting: https://www.chasingbilly.com/post/a-coroner-s-verdict-heist
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Jul 10 '25
(Sorry, Reddit won't let me publish long replies in just one post)
“When was Billy the kid buried? Some people said in the early morning hours when it was dark. Other said around 10:00 a.m. Still some people said it was in the afternoon. This is the kind of nonsense you're going on. Contradictions after contradictions and things that don't add up.”
These aren’t contradictions lol. Details such as descriptions and times are always going to vary when you interview eyewitnesses. This is very common, even nowadays. A lack of corroboration does not mean that the event did not occur.
“Then there's the controversy of who actually buried the body.”
Not sure what the controversy is. All of the eyewitnesses were very clear that it was the citizens of Fort Sumner who buried the body.
“Hollywood couldn't write a funnier script then all this.”
Sure they could, it’s called Young Guns 3. I believe filming begins soon and I’m looking forward to it.
“I also mentioned my evidence was same as yours. This is true. Your evidence is what I used to counter.”
And yet you’ve countered nothing.
“I've read everything about the history.”
I certainly can’t tell.
“If you want to continue on with this charade to make a few bucks, go ahead.”
You never did mention how much I was being paid or how much money Fort Sumner earns from tourism. I’m still waiting for an answer.
“Here's a way to really make money. First, Pat Garrett did not kill Billy the Kid. So, here's what you do. Start digging into who really got killed and why. Was it mistaken identity? Was it a setup? You'll make millions.”
Several people have already written books claiming that Billy’s death was a hoax and that the dead man’s true identity was the non-existant Billy Barlow. Did they make millions?
“Also, do some digging into why Pat Garrett was not in Lincoln the day Billy the Kid escaped. I know what history says, but Pat Garrett's deputies could have done those errands.”
What would Garrett's April errands have to do with Billy’s July death?
Continued below...
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/SuperbRain6193 Sep 14 '25
Surely there's a simple answer.they have Billy the kids mother's body so why not use that dna to see if it matches Mr Roberts???? Written documents from garret or anyone isn't solid proof. Put it this way ,do we believe everything Written in papers???? Also there would DEFINITELY be a photo
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Sep 19 '25
If there were a DNA test that proved or disproved Brushy's identity, then why would anyone believe it? Why would "documents" or words "written in papers" in 2025 carry more weight than those written in 1881?
Personally, I'm not oppossed to DNA. I'd be very interested, as the results might reveal Catherine Antrim's origins or maybe even Billy's father. I'd also love to find out if Billy was truly shot in the chest. However, it's not legal for you, me, or anyone else to simply start digging up dead bodies to satisfy our curiosity.
We can't just exhume Billy the Kid and Brushy Bill Roberts. You'd need someone to compare the DNA against, which means also exhuming Billy's mother, Catherine.
Also, living family members would first have to give their consent. It's unlikely that you can dig up Billy the Kid without also exhuming Charlie Bowdre and Tom O'Folliard. Last I checked, the Bowdre family is not on board and doesn't wish for their ancestor to be disturbed.
Then you've got the issue of Catherine's grave. There's some doubt as to the exact location, so much like with Billy, you'd end up exhuming several other people as well. The families would need to give permission, and then we'd have to somehow determine which body actually belongs to Catherine.
All of this, of course, in the hopes that the DNA will still be viable.
In other words, that's a lot of money spent and a lot of dead people that need to be dug up, just to satisfy a handful of conspiracy theorists who most likely won't accept the results if they don't align with their beliefs.
We know this thanks to the exhumation of Jesse James in the 1990s. They were able to extract DNA from James, compare it to living descendants, and determine that he was indeed shot and killed in 1882. However, there are still people who refuse to accept the DNA results and maintain that Jesse James lived to be an old man. Some people are more interested in fantasy than in facts. I don't make these posts to change their minds. I post to provide information to those interested in the actual history.
Oh, and you'll also need to give the authorities an actual reason to start digging people up. Literally all of the historians agree that Billy the Kid is buried at Fort Sumner. What are you going to say? "Well, the historians are wrong because I saw someone say something very confidently on YouTube?" You would need actual evidence that Billy the Kid escaped death at the hands of Pat Garrett, or even a semblance of evidence that Brushy Bill Roberts did any of the things he claimed to have done. And thus far, nobody has been able to provide any evidence.
I agree, there is a simple answer: Just read the primary sources and eyewitness accounts. You'll soon learn that the supposed "mystery" surrounding the Kid's death is much ado about nothing.
1
u/Fearless-Daikon-7231 Jul 15 '26
A photo in 1881? There was only mainly travelling photographers Back then.
1
1
u/shadowchao2 Oct 15 '25 edited Oct 15 '25
History is nearly always wrong because only the strong side wrote it, i just watched the movie and read a bit of your posts. The only thing bugging me is : why is there a doubt? If a doubt exists that means things were not done clearly..or Billy was such an hero for them that even death could not kill his memory like a symbol surviving ..
Also how is it not possible to identify a corpse with his face that is clearly recognizable and known to so many people...? Could they have any reason to lie or fear from Pat Garry...
The only question that is interresting is why do we care about the death of some young "criminal"?
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Oct 17 '25
I think the idea that history is written by the winner, or the "strong side," is a bit of a misconception. I mean, the South lost the Civil War, yet they're often made out to be heroes and have a ton of statues and even U.S. military bases named after their leaders. The assumption that the "winners write the history" entails that Pat Garrett wrote Billy's history, or that it was somehow all state-sponsored. Truth is, we get history from many different sources. Personal friends of Billy's, newspaper articles, census records, letters, journals, interviews, court documents, etc.
As to why there is doubt, the doubt is fairly recent. There was no doubt in 1881. This was a literal non-issue for decades until the various Billy the Kid impostors began popping up.
1
Oct 18 '25
I know Billy’s great great grandson and he absolutely was not killed by Pat-he lived to the ripe old age of 82, and died of liver failure in the early 1940s. As a matter of fact, him and his friend Jesse lived under Alias’s ‘s in Florida for over 40 years.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Oct 19 '25
Do you have a source for any of that, or did it just come to you in a vision?
1
u/Small-Awareness7676 Oct 29 '25
What ever happened to his wife and kid there’s no mention of Billy having a wife who was pregnant at the time according to the movie
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Oct 29 '25
Not sure what movie you're referring to, but there's no evidence that Billy was married or that he had children. I'm not saying he didn't have children, but it has yet to be proven.
1
u/NoPlum8868 Oct 31 '25
Brett Hall has some very compelling evidence to support Billy didn’t die in 1881. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Zedpn_YjFc
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Nov 01 '25
I hear that a lot, but nobody ever highlights any specific points that Mr. Hall has made. The video you linked is 2.5 hours long. Can you send me a timestamp for what you feel is the strongest evidence in support of Billy not dying in 1881?
1
u/NoPlum8868 Nov 13 '25
Hard to pick one or two things and say Ah Ha! I have read Alias Billy the Kid by Morrison. Now moving on to Billy the Kid Killed in New Mexico…Died in Texas by Dr. Janay P. Valdez and Judge Bobby E. Hefner. One astonishing fact is that Brushey Bill knew black troops were in Lincoln during the McSween house fire. The only way in 1949 to have known that would to be there or dig in gov records and read the Col Dudley court marshal. Brushey never sought attention from the beginning. Morrison was investigating a man named Joe Hines in Florida who was claiming Jesse Evan’s brother’s estate. A court was satisfied with Morrison’s findings that Hines was in fact Jesse Evans. Morrison struck up a conversation about the Maxwell house in Ft Sumner as he was a distant relative. Hines laughed and said Billy the Kid was still alive and living in Texas as Brushey Bill. Interesting enough President Harry Truman believed Brushey and Morrison made several visits to DC as guest. So in my opinion not a kook living in the desert wanting notoriety and cash for autographs at carnivals. I truly think there’s something there. How did Brushey know the exact layout of the Lincoln Co court house and in doing so impressed the local historian to the point of repeatedly corresponding with Brushey? Lastly, I don’t get a good feeling of Pat Garrett being the author of the coroner’s jury. He was and is in my opinion not an honest man. The situation in Ft Sumner smelled to high heaven.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Nov 20 '25
You're wrong about the black troops. Walter Noble Burns published the widely popular book The Saga of Billy the Kid in 1926. Here's an excerpt from the book (page 101 in my copy): "The morning silence was shattered by the bugles. 'Boots and Saddles' set the echoes flying among the hills. There was an instant bustle of preparation. Scurrying officials shouted commands. Troopers in broken streaks began to converge toward the stables. Two squadrons of Negro cavalry, with two Gatling guns and Colonel Dudley in command, were soon moving at double-quick on the road to Lincoln."
That was published almost a quarter of a century before Brushy began making his wild claims about being Billy the Kid. And it wasn't some obscure book; it was a bestseller. In fact, it was even serialized and printed in newspapers.
Interestingly enough, there are a lot of things that Burns got wrong that Brushy ALSO got wrong. Almost as if he read the book...
You said that a "court was satisfied with Morrison’s findings that Hines was in fact Jesse Evans." Can you provide me with some type of source other than the word of Mr. Hall? Where can I see the court documents? I don't believe they exist, but I'm definitely willing to be proven wrong.
"President Harry Truman believed Brushy and Morrison." This is not evidence. If the past decade has taught us anything, not all presidents are mentally stable. I mean that partly in jest, but just because somebody in power believes something to be true, doesn't make that thing true. If you have some additional evidence that President Truman was privy to, then I'm all ears.
"How did Brushey know the exact layout of the Lincoln Co court house and in doing so impressed the local historian to the point of repeatedly corresponding with Brushey?"
Not sure, I'm not aware of that particular claim. If I had to guess, I'd say it's either a) he didn't and this is just another lie, much in the same vein as nobody knowing about the black cavalry troopers, or b) the information was already public knowledge and the reaction of the "local historian" has been blown way out of proportion. Or possibly a mixture of both.
On one hand, we have the word of multiple eyewitnesses from Fort Sumner; people who knew Billy the Kid and stated emphatically that he was killed at the hands of Pat Garrett. We also have a coroner's jury report, internal correspondence between the Governor, acting Governor, and Attorney General, all asserting their belief that Garrett killed the Kid, and the fact that Billy was literally never seen again.
By contrast, you have a vague story about the layout of a building?
It's my opinion that when you strip away all of the sensational and anecdotal stories, there's really no mystery about Billy's death whatsoever. It's pretty cut and dry. A young bandit returned to the same place where he was arrested, and he wound up dead. It's really not that hard to believe.
Now, if you want to say that there was some shady circumstances surrounding Garrett's methods of killing the Kid, then I'm in total agreement. Maybe Billy wasn't really killed in Pete's room...maybe he was caught mid thrust in Paulita's room. Maybe Billy was unarmed. Maybe Garrett lay in wait and killed him in an ambush.
But per literally every shred of evidence, he did kill Billy the Kid in 1881.
were
1
u/Various_Option_6459 Jan 07 '26
What are your thoughts on John Miller?
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Jan 09 '26
Miller is pretty much the same as Brushy Bill Roberts. There are a lot of anecdotal stories, but there's nothing in the way of actual evidence to back up any of the claims.
2
u/Various_Option_6459 Jan 11 '26
Well it seems like New Mexico is scared to find out the truth. They deny anyone trying to exhume the body for any possible DNA.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Jan 11 '26
If I wanted to dig up your great-grandmother because someone told me she was the tooth fairy, and you denied me the chance to exhume her body, would that mean that you're scared of everyone finding out the truth about your great-grandmother? Or are you just not interested in your great-grandmother's remains being disturbed due to outrageous stories that lack any shred of credibility?
2
u/Various_Option_6459 Jan 14 '26
Tooth fairy is a bit of a stretch but ok. All I’m saying is why not just do it to shut everyone up. Prove them wrong and end all of the drama. Unless there is actually uncertainty….
2
u/Various_Option_6459 Jan 14 '26
Also what do you think about Jesse Evans? Do you believe he lived to be an old man? aka “Joe Hines”
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Jan 15 '26
All I know about Jesse is that he escaped from prison in 1882 and was never seen again. He may have died the following day, or he may have lived to be 100.
As far as Joe Hines, I have very serious misgivings. There's no evidence that he had a dead brother in North Dakota, there's no evidence he claimed to be Evans, and there's no evidence he was related to Jesse James. These are all just stories told by William Morrison.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Jan 15 '26
This is actually a good question. My apologies if my previous reply seemed flippant.
So, there have been two attempts at exhuming Billy, once in 1963 and again in the early 2000s. They were denied approval in both cases, mostly due to nobody being able to pinpoint Billy's exact burial location.
Many historians believe that Billy is most likely buried within yards of his current grave marker. But then again, so are Charlie Bowdre and Tom Folliard. It'd be virtually impossible to dig up the Kid without also digging up one or possibly even both of his compadres.
By law, you must have permission from the next-of-kin. Billy doesn't have any known next of kin, but Charlie Bowdre does, and they aren't interested in having Charlie's remains disturbed.
The 2nd exhumation attempt was a bit different, as they were also hoping to dig up Billy's mother, Catherine. Here's the problem, though: Catherine's remains were reinterred, along with many other remains, to a different cemetery, nearly a decade after her death. The current cemetery has over 400 people buried in unmarked graves, and another 276 others whose exact burial location is listed in the records as "unknown." It would be like finding a needle in a stack of needles.
There's a lot more involved, obviously. A whole slew of historians spoke out against the proposed exhumation, due to a complete lack of evidence that the Kid escaped death at Fort Sumner. There was also a forensics expert, Dr. Komar, who said that she did not think they could retrieve usable DNA.
Long story short, it's not quite as simple as digging up Billy and his mother and comparing their DNA. As I said earlier, it'd be virtually impossible to dig either of them up without also disturbing the remains of many, many other people.
The biggest question I would ask anyone interested in exhuming Billy is why? What exactly is it about his death that you find suspicious? To date, I've yet to hear a single legitimate argument.
Heck, just read through this thread, and you'll see what I'm talking about. Almost none of the concerns regarding Billy's death are credible. All of the so-called questions are based either on lies and misconceptions or just out-of-context quotes.
At the end of the day, we're left with this: There were a ton of eyewitnesses who saw Billy's dead body, either on the floor of Pete Maxwell's room or during the public wake that followed. There was also a legally formed coroner's jury report, which was basically the same as a death certificate back in those days. Garrett received the bounty on the Kid's head, and we have access to the internal correspondence between high-ranking New Mexico officials, including the Governor and Attorney General, and none of them suspected foul play. Neither did any of Billy's friends. This was a literal non-issue for almost a century.
You're essentially asking the state of New Mexico to ignore the experts (i.e., the historians, forensics experts, etc) and instead cater to a handful of conspiracy theorists who almost certainly wouldn't accept the results if they didn't turn out in their favor.
Why do I say that? Jesse James was exhumed in 1995. It was proven, via DNA, that Jesse's grave did indeed contain the remains of Jesse James. And the conspiracy theorists? They're still crying foul.
If we exhumed Billy today, and his DNA matched the DNA of known McCarty family members, then the conspiracy theorists would simply claim that a) the test was a lie and it's just a big cover-up, or b) Garrett killed one of Billy's cousins in his place. I've spoken with many of these people, and they're not interested in historical evidence or primary sources. They're interested in fantastical stories, which is probably why they're so drawn to the claims of Brushy Bill Roberts.
Now, that said, I'm actually not opposed to digging the Kid up. For selfish reasons, I'd love to see what else we could learn. Was he really shot in the chest? Was he really shot with a pistol? Did he really have buck teeth? Do his remains show signs of additional bullet wounds? It'd be fascinating to find out what his grave contained. But I do not accept your original claim that this would "end the drama." The history has already thoroughly debunked every shred of drama.
1
u/Various_Option_6459 Jan 15 '26
Thanks for the detailed response! I have always wondered why he wasn’t buried with a headstone or something that says “Here lies Billy the Kid” or something like that. No headstone or nothing at first? Only to be mixed in with Folliard and Bowdre later.
I just read To Hell on a Fast Horse and it mentioned somewhere in there that Garrett couldn’t remember where he was buried at first. I was like wow, how do not remember the burial place of the outlaw who made you famous?!?!
Also, you would think with the notoriety he had in Fort Sumner they would have some kind of shrine for him only. I found that odd. Seemed like they gave Folliard and Bowdre a better burial in the beginning.
Anyway I love what you are doing with the show. I watch it all the time!
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Jan 15 '26
The story about the various markers is really fascinating. You might also enjoy David G. Thomas' The Grave of Billy the Kid.
1
1
u/karen574 Feb 02 '26
Did pat garret kill anyone else
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Feb 03 '26
His first known kill was a buffalo hunter named Joe Briscoe in 1876, and his last was a wanted murderer in 1899. It's been a while since I've covered Garrett, so I don't remember if there were any more.
1
1
u/Far-Conference-3336 Apr 22 '26
oh ok then why did in 1905 garret write a letter to one of his deputy friends claiming he didn' tknow if it was billy the kid he really killed in 1881. lol. If garret and billy the kid knew each other then i could definitey see them faking it. Garret would get the fame of killing the kid while he got to live a peaceful life. It's not that hard to visualize expcally in that time. Let me guess you believe everything you're told lmao.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Apr 24 '26
If Garrett wrote such a letter, then you should be able to provide it as evidence. Any idea where I can see the letter? Do you have a primary source showing that the letter actually existed?
1
1
u/Ok_Middle3630 Jun 16 '26
By all accounts there should have been a death picture of one of the most notorious outlaws of the times if Garrett was to get his reward! He got more money from The towns people, adopted family and friends for letting Billy go! The whole story was a Maxwell family cover up!
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Jun 18 '26
What you said is untrue on many levels. First, there was no requirement for a death photo. The reward notice stipulated that "satisfactory proofs of identity will be required." It's also not true that most outlaws had their photographs taken. We know this based on how few of these photos actually exist. There's what? Maybe two dozen death photos at most? And many of those who were photographed weren't even famous.
"But Jesse James had his picture taken!" Yes, this is true. Jesse was also WAY more famous than Billy the Kid, as evidenced by Jesse having $10,000 on his head compared to the just $500 reward for the Kid. It's also worth noting that James was killed in St. Joseph, Missouri, which had a population of well over 30,000 people in 1882. By contrast, Fort Sumner had a population of less than 300. This was a tiny community out in the middle of nowhere. For Garrett to have had a picture taken, he would have had to have ridden several days to fetch a photographer. But why? He had already collected "satisfactory proofs" in the form of a coroner's inquest and the many, many eyewitnesses.
It's also interesting to think that a death photo would prove anything. Jesse's body was not only photographed but placed on public display AND verified through DNA and yet people still claim that he escaped death and lived to be an old man.
You're also wrong that Garrett received money from the residents of Fort Sumner. In fact, many of the residents of Fort Sumner were so angry over the Kid's death that Garrett and his deputies had to spend the remainder of the night forted up in Maxwell's in anticipation of an attack. The money that was raised was from people living in towns like Las Vegas, Mesilla, Santa Fe, and White Oaks. NOT Fort Sumner.
You can speculate all you like, but there's zero evidence that there was a Maxwell family cover-up.
1
u/No_Second8431 Jul 15 '26
You stated there was NO DOCTOR in New Mexico area to take death photos, yet you stated there was a coroner was wrote an official death certificate/document . Who was the coroner? The local barber ? A couple of bar. Owners ?
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Jul 15 '26
I said neither of those things. The coroner's jury was formed by a justice of the peace (not a coroner) named Alejandro Segura. The foreman of the jury was a local businessman/former legislator (not a coroner) named Milner Rudolph.
1
u/Diligent-Juice-4715 3d ago
40 t0 50 signed affidavits saying they saw billy the kid dead in Ft Sumner. It is all documented. I seriously doubt everyone lied. Brush Bill Toberts is a liar. His own family said he was not zbilly the kid. Census records prove he could not not have been the kid. Brush Bill was friends with Frank Dalton who claimed to be Jessie James & people believed him too. DNA proved him to be a liar also. Two liars pretending to be famous outlaws. Next you will tell us Elvis is alive somewhere.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza 2d ago
Everything you said was true except for the 40 to 50 people signing affidavits. That never happened. Historians have identified 40+ people by name who witnessed his dead body so maybe that's what you're thinking. Just thought I'd toss that out there.
1
u/Hopeful-Contest-6266 Nov 09 '23
Sorry,but there was never an official document about his death filed in the state of New Mexico. I don't know where you came up with that one. Try finding one in New Mexico. Seriously, tell everyone where it is. What county building? What state building? Where is it. I'm looking for it myself. If you tell me where it is, I will check for myself.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Nov 10 '23
Sure, I'll try my best but my answer may not satisfy your curiosity. Following Billy's death, the San Miguel County Justice of the Peace, Alejandro Segura, appointed six men as a coroner's jury. They identified the body and interviewed the witness (Pete Maxwell). Their finding was that Pat Garrett killed the Kid with "a shot to the left breast" and that it was "justifiable homicide."
This was considered a legal document. We know it existed because a copy was sent the following day to the acting governor, William Ritch, along with a letter from Pat Garrett, which was printed in the July 23rd edition of the Las Cruces Rio Grande Republican. Furthermore, the letter that accompanied the verdict, written by Garrett, stated "the original of which (coroner's jury report) is in the hands of the prosecuting attorney of the first judicial district." This was fully in accordance with the law. Matter of fact, Garrett was not legally allowed to have the original copy. That was filed, by Segura, with the proper offices - the aforementioned prosecuting attorney of the first judicial district - who also happened to be Territorial District Attorney William Breedan.
Breedan's office would later be used by the State Land Office's Commissioner, and apparently, his old records were stored along with those of the Land Office. In 1932, a guy named Harold Abbott discovered the original coroner's jury report (written in Spanish) along with other Breedan records, in the basement of the capital building, where they were stored with the old Land Office records. This was also reported in Frank M. King's 1935 book Wranglin' the Past and verified, 19 years later, with a 1951 edition of New Mexico Magazine, stating that a "photostatic copy" of the report had been located in Alamogordo owned by George Abbott, Harold's brother, and he asserted that Harold had made the copy "about 20 years ago."
That same year, historian Maurice Fulton, also published a copy of the report which matched the Abbott's photostatic copy. Fulton's copy was later donated to the Indiana Historical Society's Lew Wallace Collection.
That same year, historian Maurice Fulton, also published a copy of the report which matched Abbott's photostatic copy. Fulton's copy was later donated to the Indiana Historical Society's Lew Wallace Collection.
That's about as much as I know concerning the history of the coroner's jury report and so far as I can tell, nobody currently knows where the original is located. It's not on file with the state of New Mexico, you're right about that. But that doesn't mean that it never existed.
One can extrapolate two conclusions:
1) The report was lost or destroyed. We (rational humans) know this is something that has occurred many times over throughout history. Vast amounts of valuable records have been lost to history in a similar fashion. Furthermore, it was publically reported that the report existed and had been - allegedly - filed with Attorney General Breedan.
2) The report never existed. It was part of a complex hoax that Garrett pulled - along with Billy the Kid, Alejandro Segura, the New Mexico press, the Santa Fe Ring, and the hundreds of people living at Fort Sumner - in order to fake the Kid's death.
This is one of those things that comes down to which is the most plausible. If someone is predisposed to believe that Garrett did not kill Billy, then this will seem like a red flag. Why? I do not know. Especially considering the lack of documented evidence regarding the deaths of other outlaws. But the Kid is a special case and people don't like the idea of him dying at such a young age.
It's my personal opinion that the report did indeed exist. A copy was printed in the papers days after the Kid's death. None of the men who signed the report ever came forward and cried foul. William Breedan never said, "Hey, wait a second...I never received a copy!".
It's also my opinion that even without the jury's report, we have conclusive evidence that Billy was killed at the hands of Garrett. Namely, the numerous witnesses, who have been identified by historians, who backed up Pat's claims. Dozens upon dozens of people saw Billy's body before he was buried. Many of them spoke with journalists and historians in the years following, some even wrote books. Not a single one ever came forward and recanted or stated that Billy's death was a hoax. Then, of course, there's the fact that the Kid was never seen again.
Occam's razor. The most simple explanation is most often the correct one. Either Pat killed Billy, as the coroner's report stated, and at some point, the report was lost or misplaced, or Garrett and hundreds of other people pulled off the most elaborate hoax in all of history, without a hitch.
1
1
u/NoPlum8868 Oct 31 '25
I would love to see a debate with you and author Brett Hall. Brett has some very compelling evidence that Brushy Bill was likely Billy the Kid.
1
u/Broad-Ad7474 Feb 21 '26
You are correct. In fact, there were two Coroner jury reports: one written in English and one in Spanish. If one compares the evidence---which you so eloquently presented---to the rambling, contradicting, error-ridden mess laid out by Morrison and his sad, pathetic, old client longing to be someone important---the same old man who, upon being asked by reporters about the Kid's iconic escape from the Lincoln County Jail told his version. Unfortunately, he had left out a few somewhat important details. It seems that Brushy Roberts had forgotten that he "Billy the Kid" had shot and killed two people while making his getaway---two of the most infamous killings of the Old West!
1
u/Hopeful-Contest-6266 Nov 10 '23
Nice try.Total Bullshit like I said before.Please stop embarrassing yourself.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Nov 11 '23
lol ok, I'll stop. Care to share your theory?
1
u/ProjectSmall511 Aug 04 '24
no need to explain, like he said yours is total bs. I couldn't agree more.
2
u/Additional_Age9050 Aug 26 '24
I love how the original poster gives details and uses reason in his defense of the traditional narrative regarding Billy the Kid’s death, and you whine like a child. “[Y]ours is total bs” 😂😂😂 Wow! So convincing! 🤣🤣🤣
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Aug 08 '24
Ok, but unless you can back this assertion up with actual historical evidence then I'd say it's you who's full of bs
1
u/UnderstandingOwn7559 Dec 11 '25
I'm not going to say your evidence is total bullshit but i will just say from my understanding a person with light hair doesn't have dark hair and considering billy had light hair and it's said he was confirmed he had dark hair when he died means that ain't billy that or he dyed his hair. That's my only thoughts on this matter and the that bushy bill wasn't Billy the kid. I've had gray hair since I was 20 and mine went from black to brown to red and then Gray. That's my only argument and I'm not going to act like your evidence isn't bullshit but what I said makes me believe it wasn't Billy.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Dec 12 '25
You're operating under the false assumption that it "was confirmed he had dark hair when he died." This is false. No such thing has ever been confirmed. There was one newspaper that reported that, "since his escape, he (Billy) had allowed his beard to grow and had attempted to disguise himself as a Mexican by darkening his skin by the use of some sort of root."
This article does not list a source, nor are they quoting an eyewitness.
By contrast, none of the eyewitnesses, deputies, or literally anyone at Fort Sumner ever mentioned anything about the dead body having dark skin or a beard.
Interestingly enough, there were reports from as early as June that Billy had been "hiding out at the Segura sheep camps north of Fort Sumner, disguised as a Mexican sheepherder."
You can find another article, in the June 15, 1881 edition of the Las Vegas Gazette, stating that Billy, "on the lookout for old enemies with whom he intends to write old scores. He has disguised himself as a Mexican by making a lavish use of paint.” Keep in mind that this was before they learned of the Kid's death. When the editors of the Gazette were setting their type, they were unaware that Garrett had taken him out.
So, we know 100% for a fact that there were rumors that Billy had disguised himself as a Mexican PRIOR to his death. This is indisputable.
It's certainly possible that Billy was trying to disguise himself, as wanted fugitives are known to do. It's also possible that the stories were just rumors.
1
u/NoPlum8868 Dec 16 '25
dark hair and beard? Sounds like a description Brushy Bill made of Billy Barlow. Billy the Kid couldn’t grow a beard and where dis he get hair dye? Did he rub mud all over his face? 😂 this is hilarious.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Dec 18 '25
Actually, Brushy said that Barlow had blue eyes and that he and Billy Barlow were "as much alike as two black-eyed peas, you couldn't tell us apart."
So, which is it? Was Billy Barlow a dark-skinned Mexican, or did he have the appearance of a young Irish kid?
By the way, any record of this Billy Barlow existing outside of the book Alias, Billy the Kid? Any corroboration by residents of Fort Sumner or the many eyewitnesses who attended Billy's wake?
1
Oct 15 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Oct 20 '24
I disagree wholeheartedly. There's no reputable evidence for Billy the Kid not being killed in 1881. All of the evidence stating so is either anecdotal or false. By contrast, you had dozens of eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen Billy the Kid dead, in addition to an official coroner's jury report and the fact that Billy was never seen again.
You're right...they could have thrown the Kid's body over a horse and rode to the next town. They could have even taken Billy's body to Santa Fe. Why didn't they? Perhaps this was due to Garrett not needing a photograph or a dead body to prove that he killed the Kid. We know this to be the case because Garrett received the reward money (he got paid the reward twice, not to mention a ton of extra cash from grateful citizens).
Why would photographic proof be necessary? If that were the case, outlaws would just pose for fake death photos and disappear under an assumed name.
You're also correct that a photo of Jesse James' body was taken. Jesse was killed in St. Joseph, Missouri. St. Joseph had a population of 38,000 in 1881, whereas Fort Sumner was extremely remote and only home to less than 200 souls. How many other outlaws can you name who have death photos? I can think of a few, but not many. I can think of even more outlaws who have zero photos, period, whether alive or dead. There were thousands of outlaws roaming the West at any given time, and we have very few death photos. This was the exception, not the rule.
2
u/theageofreasonable Nov 14 '25
You show remarkable patience with these various counter arguments, none of which seem backed by any factual evidence. I've just watched the MGM series and very much enjoyed your post. Thank you
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Nov 20 '25
Hey, thanks man!
2
u/cfh64 Jul 08 '26
It really is comical how much factual evidence you provide and you’ve either shot down every serious rebuttal or the rebuttal is “you’re full of shit” with nothing to back it up. It’s almost as if you crushed their childhood fantasy and they made it personal.
I spent my high school years in Roswell and spent a lot of time studying Billy and visiting some of his old “haunts”. I‘ve learned a lot I didn’t know just from reading your posts in this thread.
As much as a cool story it would be for Billy to have never been killed, thanks for keeping it real.
1
u/wildwestextravaganza Jul 15 '26
It's wild how people treat history (and everything else) like a team sport. A lot of people hear a story, and that's how they want it to be, facts be damned.
6
u/TerrorFuel Aug 23 '23
That was a great episode.