New article from Steve Sederwall.

[clydec]

This was posted by Steve Sederwall on his facebook page.  "I SPEAK OF WHAT I KNOW -

135 years ago the dirt was freshly turned on what would be promoted by the village of Fort Sumner, as "The official grave of Billy the Kid". Soon afterwards a story hit the papers that the Kid's body had been thrown in a Las Vegas corral for the bugs to de-flesh.

In 1906, Fort Sumner was abandoned and the soldiers resting in the post cemetery were moved to Santa Fe's National Cemetery. Pic #1, the map shows the Kid in grave #28, but the bodies of he and his pards aren't in a line as Ft. Sumner displays the graves.

An old weathered newspaper clipping dated December 3, 1925, with a headline, "Billy the Kid's Bones as Elusive as Bandit", claims a, "Lincoln party had excavated the supposed site of burial, and found neither coffin, or bones, or anything but earth." Three years later, 1928 pic #2 was taken of the grave, grown over. The weeds were cut back and the search for the grave is on, pic #3, because Billy the Kid had resurrected and money was now involved.

June 2, 1955, El Crepusculo, a Taos paper, stated Father Burke oversaw the exhumation of the soldiers' and said, "The grave formerly occupied by the body of the Kid was empty." In, "An Outlaw Called Kidd" by Zeke Castro, the author states the, "supposed coffin of the Kidd was moved because water was eroding the ground around it." Castro says inside the coffin was nothing but a saddle bag & some rocks. J. Frank Dobie writes in "Apache Gold and Yaqui Sliver" the coffin contained "three bags of sand". In a 1980 "Frontier Times" article, Ben W. Kemp quoted John Graham, who allegedly help dig the Kid's grave, and Graham claimed the casket arrived in a wagon with an armed guard to ensure no one would raise the lid.

So what's the answer? Is the Kid in the grave? You're not going to be allowed to know. Fort Sumner, Historians, and writers of the West will fight to stop you from knowing. Money is still on the line in the form of tourist dollars and book sales. If you press the issue you'll be branded a trouble maker, a want-to-be grave robber, a liar, and stand a good chance of some whack job suing you.

Investigators know cases are solved by picking up on the small things. If you miss the small things the larger ones can be hidden right in front of you. Which brings me to the most interesting statement of all, made by Pat Garrett. It's small and has been right there in front of us. Garrett published his book in 1882 and makes the claim of killing the Kid. Garrett says at the end of his book, "Again I say that The Kid's body lies undisturbed in the grave - and I speak of what I know."

How can Garrett know unless he dug up the grave? The next question is why? Had I killed the most dangerous bandit in the Southwest who had killed two of my deputies I wouldn't care if someone dug him up and propped him up on the 50 yard line of the Dallas/Denver game. Why does Garrett care? Was there sand and rocks in the coffin and he feared being caught? Was someone else in the coffin and he did not want to be embarrassed when his book came out and someone produced another body? Why does he care?

There are a lot of unanswered questions that many do not want you to know the answer to and of that, "I speak of what I know?"

[mckinley412]

Thank you for sharing that. I will share what I have. Most comes from a pamphlet called The Hico Legend of Billy the Kid which contains some info compiled by Bill Hefner who writes that in Las Vegas Daily Optic Sept 10 1881 in a article titled 'The Kid Kidnapped' "The fifth day after the burial of the notorious young desperado, a fearless skelologist of this country, whose name, for substantial reasons, cannot be divulged, proceeded to Sumner and in the silent watches of the night, with the assistance of a compadre, dug up the remains of the once mighty youth and carried them off in a wagon." My problem with all of these stories is that nobody ever tells you where you can find the information to verify it is true. I also read recently that Pat did dig up the grave although I don't remember exactly where I read it (so I guess I'm just as bad, heehee) and it could have been in a fictional story I read although I doubt it and if so Garrett may have been a self-righteous delusional narcissist that even though he want to kill the Kid he didn't want the remains desecrated or.... or... he wouldn't have cared if someone stole the body but he just wanted everyone to know that they were getting jipped for paying to see a body that came out of the grave but was in fact not the Kid's.

[mckinley412]

Also: In a list of facts compiled by Bill Hefner in the Hico Legend of Billy the Kid pamphlet who only thanks The Hico News Review, The El Paso Times, and The Roswell Daily Record and Encylcopedia so I can't actually tell you where else to find this, he reports "In 1962 a Lois Tefler of New York City claimed to be Billy's closest living relative. She filed a suit against Debaca County (oh, I guess you could look there) , saying Billy's grave had been negleected. She wanted his body moved to Lincoln, where she had been promised a more attractive site. she lost her case. Bowdre's cousin convinced the court that moving Billy's bones would disturb those of Charlie, who, it is supposed lies next to him." I guess got time, I'll post part of another one. WPA Files of the Library of Congress Dr. J. R. Carver reported that there seems to be evidence Billy went down to Marfa Texas after his supposed death and that a sister came out to see him but did not go to his grave, his horse was never seen again, Pete and Pat were his friends (which MissyS told us there was a newspaper that reported that Pat and Pete travelled together after the shooting) and he said that a Mexican was buried instead of Billy and the Kid was rumored to have gone down to Texas on the Rio Grande.

[aaron0515]

Jul 17, 2016 18:53:33 GMT -5 mckinley412 said:

Thank you for sharing that. I will share what I have. Most comes from a pamphlet called The Hico Legend of Billy the Kid which contains some info compiled by Bill Hefner who writes that in Las Vegas Daily Optic Sept 10 1881 in a article titled 'The Kid Kidnapped' "The fifth day after the burial of the notorious young desperado, a fearless skelologist of this country, whose name, for substantial reasons, cannot be divulged, proceeded to Sumner and in the silent watches of the night, with the assistance of a compadre, dug up the remains of the once mighty youth and carried them off in a wagon." My problem with all of these stories is that nobody ever tells you where you can find the information to verify it is true. I also read recently that Pat did dig up the grave although I don't remember exactly where I read it (so I guess I'm just as bad, heehee) and it could have been in a fictional story I read although I doubt it and if so Garrett may have been a self-righteous delusional narcissist that even though he want to kill the Kid he didn't want the remains desecrated or.... or... he wouldn't have cared if someone stole the body but he just wanted everyone to know that they were getting jipped for paying to see a body that came out of the grave but was in fact not the Kid's.

I must say, this would explain a lot if Garrett did kill the wrong man.  By killing Bowdrie and Offaliard in an ambush believing them to be Billy, Garrett's reputation wouldn't be able to take another "wrong Man" killing mis-hap.  Due to killing (Barlow) the wrong man, the first order would be to get the body buried as fast as possible, next would be to go back once things settle down and get rid of the evidence of the wrongful killing.  In regards to the reward money, with no filed valid coroners jury report, no photo of the dead Billy the Kid,  it would have been very easy for the payor of the reward to require some sort of proof rather than the word of Garrett, which would be a great reason for him to get rid of the body that was in the wooden box (Barlow), therefore, if the grave was required to be dug up to show proof, and all that were to be found was a saddle bag, rocks, and/or sandbags, it would be easy for Garret to say, "well, must have been grave robbers"  and he could back it up with witnesses that "A Body"  was actually buried. McKinley412,  I can tell, that yourself, Missy and Wayne have done extensive research into the Brushy Claim.  I've enjoyed reading your posts, I have waited until I have read every post on this forum before commenting on anything, but I have noticed that not much discussion has been had recently.  I hope that I can add some good questions, insight, and research into these discussions.  Thank You