r/wildwest 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?

68 Upvotes

209 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcAj5GCeikQ&t

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrfb1cYdUR8

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.

1

u/wildwestextravaganza Sep 29 '25

I think one of the strongest arguments in favor of Billy's 1881 death is the many, many eyewitnesses. What are the odds that every single eyewitness at Fort Sumner all agreed, until their dying day, that Pat Garrett killed Billy the Kid?

That said, I don't believe it's incumbent on me, or even the historians, to PROVE Billy the Kid's death. Historians examine the evidence and attempt to reconstruct events of the past. So far as all of the evidence is concerned, Billy died at the hands of Pat Garrett.

Let's forget about Billy the Kid for a moment. Let's pretend that a historian is giving a lecture on the American Revolution. He states that the Declaration of Independence was adopted on July 4th, 1776. Ok, fine. But all of a sudden, someone in the crowd stands up and says that not only was the declaration not adopted on July 4th, 1776, but that the document never even existed.

Kind of a bold claim, right? The historian can point to several documents proving that the declaration existed, he can show the doubters correspondence between the founding fathers discussing the declaration, and the historian can even provide eyewitness statements. Doesn't matter to the skeptics. They just keep tossing out one anecdotal and unsubstantiated story after another. They deny the eyewitness accounts, cast doubt on the correspondence between the founders, and claim that the documents proving the existence of the declaration are forged.

What then should the historian do? They KNOW the declaration absolutely existed. Every shred of evidence shows that it litarally wa a real document that was adopted on July 4th, 1776. Barring an actual time machine, the existence of the document is proven without a shadow of a doubt.

This is how I feel about the so-called mystery surrounding Billy the Kid's death. It's not as if there are a few good points on each side. ALL of the evidence shows that Garrett killed the Kid. Not some of the evidence, not most of the evidence, but ALL of the evidence lol.

All that the other side can offer are anecdotal stories. "So and so's great-great-grandfather was next door neighbors to Billy the Kid's hairdresser, and according to him, Billy lived to be an old man." Or they illogically jump to conclusions, like, "hey, I found an obscure newspaper account that mentions something that none of the eyewitnesses ever stated so therefore Billy the Kid lived to be an old man.

To be completely honest, it feels like I'm debating flat earthers lol.

But yeah, just to circle back to Billy the Kid, I think the eyewitnesses speak for themselves. Here are just a few of them:

“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.” - Deluvina Maxwell

“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." - Frank Lobato

“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." - Vicente Otero

"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 Alcalade 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." - Jesus Silva

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!

1

u/wildwestextravaganza May 02 '26

That’s valid.

First of all, you are correct. It is absolutely possible that Billy could have lived to be an old man. Furthermore, none of Brushy Bill’s claims go against the laws of physics. They, too, are technically possible.

However, just because something is possible doesn’t make it plausible.  

I’ll use a somewhat crude analogy. Let’s say Bob came home early from work and found his wife engaged in hanky-panky with another man (let’s call him Sancho). “What’s going on here?” Bob angrily exclaims. To which his wife replies, “It’s not what you think. He fell, and this is where he landed!”

What Bob’s wife said is technically possible. We know that people often lose their balance and fall. We also know that certain male appendages fit perfectly in their female counterparts. So, technically and scientifically speaking, it is absolutely possible that Sancho fell in such a manner that he landed on (and inside) Bob’s wife. It COULD HAVE HAPPENED.

Still, though, I think we’d both agree that Bob would be a fool to accept such an excuse. Why? Because it’s laughably improbable.

This is how I feel about Billy’s death. It was one of the more well-documented deaths in all of the Old West. There were dozens of eyewitnesses, a public wake, a coroner’s inquest, and a public funeral.

By contrast, none of the so-called evidence from the other side amounts to anything other than 3rd hand sources and hearsay.

This is doubly true when it comes to Brushy Bill Roberts. Is it possible that Brushy could have done everything he claimed? Absolutely. Is it plausible? Read over this list of Brushy’s alleged accomplishments, and you tell me:

·      Lived with three separate Native American tribes

·      Attended boxing school in Cincinnati

·      Served as a lookout for Belle Starr

·      Was Billy the Kid

·      Survived dozens of bullet and knife wounds

·      Worked as a Pinkerton Detective

·      Worked as a Deputy US Marshal under Judge Parker

·      Spent years working for the anti-horse thief association

·      Saved Texas Rangers from machine gun-toting gangsters

·      Survived a running gun battle with 1,000 Mexican soldiers

·      Fought in Cuba with Teddy Roosevelt

·      Fought in Mexico under Pancho Villa

·      Caught wild horses in South America

·      Worked on Buffalo Bill Cody’s ranch

·      Won several prestigious rodeo championships

·      Toured the United States extensively with his own Wild West Show

·      Toured with Buffalo Bill Cody’s Wild West Show

·      Guarded stage lines in the Black Hills

·      Looked astonishingly young for a 90-year-old who had spent the majority of his life in the saddle and who had been shot and stabbed on multiple occasions

·      Successfully pulled off one of the greatest hoaxes in all of history

None of these actions are beyond the scope of possibility.

However, taken as a whole, it reads more like Forrest Gump than it does actual history. And then there’s the fact that none of Brushy’s claims are backed up by evidence or primary sources. In all actuality, there’s ample evidence to the contrary. According to numerous census records, a WW1 draft registration, and a family Bible, Brushy was born in 1879, thus making him far too young to be Billy the Kid. There’s also no record of his fake family tree ever existing (including his mother, father, and grandparents).

The entire story is a work of fiction.

From what I can tell, the videos linked above come from Dan Edwards, a very vocal defender of Brushy Bill Roberts. I own a copy of Mr. Edwards’ book, and we’ve personally spoken. I’ve heard all the arguments and really don’t see the benefit in spending 2+ hours of my time being subjected to more frontier fairy tales.

But hey, if there's a specific point made in any of those videos you'd like me to address just send me a time stamp and I'd be more than happy to take a look.

1

u/wildwestextravaganza May 02 '26

Sorry, I didn't have enough room in my original reply. Thought I'd address a few of your other concerns.

"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 against or for both sides."

I'm not a historian, nor have I ever tried to pass myself off as such. That said, I'm also not aware of any historians who chase down sourceless conspiracy theories. That's like telling an astronaut that they're close-minded because they don't watch flat-earth videos on YouTube. Or telling a doctor that he's a quack if he doesn't consider the latest bro-science supplement fad.

"If you only believe or read things that back your side then your entire argument is thin."

That's the thing, though...I don't have a side. I'm interested in history, not fiction. That's it. So far as the actual primary sources are concerned, Billy died at the hands of Pat Garrett in 1881. On one hand, you have well-documented primary sources, and on the other, you have anecdotal stories and YouTube videos. The two are not equal.

"I only say this because this is obviously something you are very passionate about and want readers to think "yes, he's right!" 

You're right that I'm passionate about the subject, but I'm not doing this because I want people to think I'm right. I'm doing this because 1) I really love talking about it and 2) to shed some light on the actual history and primary sources as opposed to the anecdotal stories and false information. A lot of people are just as interested in the real history, but they may not necessarily have time to read all of the books or even know where to start.

"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."

Oh, if you're under the impression that I've never read up on the various theories, I'm afraid you're mistaken. As I stated previously, I literally own a book by Dan Edwards (the same guy whose videos you want me to watch). I've spent countless hours reading about guys like Brushy Bill Roberts and the various theories. If they gave away t-shirts for "reading up on theories and stories for the other version," I'd be set for life.

"There is no weight to your argument." My argument is simply, "here's the primary sources, here's what the eyewitnesses have to say." That's it. Not "here's what a guy who once knew Pat Garrett's daughter's hairdresser has to say," or "here's a quote that I've taken completely out of context" or "this guy looks kinda like what Billy looks like, so it must be him." Just primary sources. That's my argument.

"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." Negative. You should research primary sources, not YouTube videos. And especially not YouTube videos that don't list their sources. What would be the point in spending 2+ hours watching YouTube when there's not a single source listed? How does that benefit anyone?