W C Jameson's new book

[MissyS]

I thought I would pass this on  that theres  a new book out by W C Jameson also along with Steve Sederwall entitled, " Cold Case- Billy The Kid Investigating Histories Mysteries", I just downloaded it on Kindle, but it's also available on hardback, the book is about information of Billy The Kid's life, I m always excited about new books about the Kid especially ones that investigate and uncover or try to uncover some truths about him. Looks like this is going to be an interesting book 

[Wayne Land]

Thanks for the notice. I purchased it too on Kindle and have read through the intro and the 1st chapter. Certainly a unique and informative book so far. Looking forward to reading the rest.

[MissyS]

So far I'm loving this book, the book looks at events that took place involving Billy and the LCW by using eye witness accounts at the time such as autopsy reports, court statements and evidence found digging at the actual area, and by taken it all in and coming to a more realistic solution as to how events happened. One interesting thing found after researching reports was that Brady was on horseback when shot and not on foot walking. Anyway there were a lot written about Billy The Kid and the LCW that were repeated information, that's why I think this book is unique and useful because it examines the gathered research and gives more clearer answers.

[wannabe12]

I’ve gotten about halfway through this book since buying it when it was available. Although I agree that the events of the LCW needed more looking into, I don’t feel that a book of Steve Sederwall’s opinions gives a crystal clear picture of what happened. I don’t know Mr. Sederwall or his ability as an investigator. So I’m not making any assumptions in this post about him or those abilities. It seems unnecessary for W C Jameson to constantly degrade the historians and researchers who have written about Billy and the LCW in the past,credentialed or not. There have been some very good books written on both subjects, even if they don’t agree with his views. It seems amazing to me and arrogant of both Mr. Sedarwall or Mr. Jameson to claim they are the authority on all things to do with BTK, LCW, and the character of Pat Garrett.

In every book written by Jameson he believes that he alone knows what happened in all of the events regarding Billy’s and Pat Garrett’s deaths or coverups. That all of his witnesses and family members of those witnesses can not be questioned as to their honesty. No one can know all information about all of these events and the participants in those events.

[Texas Truth Teller]

“It seems unnecessary for W C Jameson to constantly degrade the historians and researchers who have written about Billy and the LCW in the past, credentialed or not.”

wannebe12,
It is a strategy that has stood the test of time.
Peddling a new theory and hoping for acceptance of a questionable version of history requires that the credibility of other writers with opposing views be diminished.

[Wayne Land]

Of course, it just couldn't be possible that the "credibility of other writers" needs to be questioned. Isn't that why Jim Johnson wrote his book? By your reasoning his book should be discounted as well. Right?

[Texas Truth Teller]

Wayne,
Quite the contrary. Johnson did not criticize other writers as Jameson did. Jameson devoted Chapter 2, Shadows of Doubt (10 pages) in “The Return of the Outlaw Billy the Kid” to dismissing research of scholars, amateurs, and other Billy the Kid researchers. Jameson, a student of C. L. Sonnichsen at Texas Western University in El Paso, in 1962, was encouraged by Sonnichsen to continue researching Brushy Bill. Is Jameson open minded and impartial?

Johnson’s research of Brushy Bill’s story revealed inconsistencies in published information. That are facts, not criticism.

[Wayne Land]

Well, no matter how you frame it, I'm pretty sure Johnson wrote his book for the purpose of discrediting Brushy and the books that support his claim. That's all Jameson is doing here. Questioning the status quo history on Billy. I'm really enjoying the book because it reveals research done by Sederwall, who I believe is completely objective and approaches the task methodically and thoroughly. BTW, he is not necessarily a Brushy Bill supporter. To the best of my knowledge he is non-commital on Brushy.

[wannabe12]

As I said in my earlier post on this thread. A lot of events during the LCW needed more looking into. I would like to have seen more than the opinion of Steve Sedarwall in this book. Whether he is an investigator with a number of years of experience or not, it is still a one-sided investigation. To me it is clear he has a dislike for Pat Garrett, whether its a personal thing or a professional thing, im not sure, but it is obvious. That alone makes me a little hesitant to take his findings as 100 pct. credible. Im not judging him, like I stated earlier I dont know the man. Just my opinion.

[Texas Truth Teller]

More bogus Brushy Bill research

wannabe12, Jameson is a gifted and talented writer and storyteller. The same cannot be said of his research. Jameson, after chiding other writers for “loose, careless, and poorly executed research”, and accusing them of repeating information found in Garrett’s book, Jameson presented “new” information. A chart, titled “Genealogy of William Henry Roberts (Billy the Kid) reconstructed from information taken from the family Bible of the late Martha Vada Roberts Heath as well as from Heath family papers” appears on page 90 of “The Return of the Outlaw Billy the Kid”.

The chart is an example of poor research. Jameson erroneously assumed information in the chart was correct, and failed to verify the accuracy of the information. The chart contains numerous mistakes. This is one of several mistakes
Caroline Dunn was the daughter of Francis Dunn, not William Dunn. Caroline is counted in the household of Francis Dunn in the 1850 census of Franklin County, AR; 1860 census of Sebastian County, AR; 1870 census of Sebastian County, AR; and the 1865 Kansas census of Franklin County.
The father of Caroline Dunn was Francis Dunn, not William Dunn. Francis was the father of 9 daughters by 3 different wives. No daughter of Francis Dunn was named Mary Adeline Dunn. Caroline Dunn did not have a sister named Mary Adeline Dunn.

[MissyS]

I want to say the new book by Jameson I don't believe was intentional but by uncovering evidence and research did happen to expose some lies told about Billy at the time, also some corruption involving the law and other parties of the LCW, and unfortunately some of Pat Garrett's words and actions got exposed in the book, so I can see where that could be a problem for some of those who believe Pat Garrett, and it seems that many persons who believe Garrett don't believe Brushy, I said it was unfortunate because there may be persons that will dismiss all the evidence, and research done in the book for that reason. There are chapters in the book that I believe wasn't ever examined much before such as the counterfeiting ring involving Billy and persons around him, I never knew how deeply or wide it spread the names involved. It's a well researched book, I learned new things so even if there is any arrogance by the aurthor I can over look it, I believe there is a little arrogance in other books written about Billy The Kid that wasn't that well researched and I over looked all that in the past as well.

[Wayne Land]

Well said Missy. Bottom line is, everyone should decide for themselves what they want to read and react honestly to the content. And they'll probably find that most authors are prone to express their own opinions at least to some degree rather than always sticking to the facts. That's OK by me because I find that makes more interesting reading than a book that is approached like a history text book and never states anything that isn't absolute proven fact. After all, such a history book on Billy would be pretty thin I fear.

[wannabe12]

Again as I have said twice already more needed to be done to find facts about the LCW. There has never been a doubt put on this board by anyone that the law in Lincoln County, and its controllers were the main problem during that time. Pat Garrett's words being exposed?? Not sure what that means.. he may have embellished facts to make himself seem more heroic, may not have killed BTK in the way he claims. If he killed him in ambush, he may not have wanted that to be known. Doesn't mean he didn't kill him that night. It does not make him any different than most lawmen or outlaws of the day.

Hollywood makes people believe that all heroes face the men they shoot, that is a complete fabrication. Most shootings in the west were done from ambush, so the other person wouldn't have a chance, the high noon, in the middle of main street,for all the town to see is complete fantasy.  Garrett obviously had no issue killing from ambush, as he did it at least twice in his hunt for Billy. So does that make him a bad person?? no, not in that day and time. Another fact that in my opinion only, that is somewhat blown out of prortion, is the fact that Billy was too smart to go back to Ft. Sumner that night, knowing the law was looking for him. In the two instances I mentioned before, he let Garrett get the drop on him, and it cost his two best friends their lives. In this book , one of the supposed lies Garrett tells is the story of the men in the orchard, just before they went to Maxwell's. Because Poe does not mention this instance, it is plainly said that Garrett made it up, but Jesus Silva in an interview later in life tells this same story of he and Billy being in the orchard just before he was killed at Maxwell's. So does that mean Silva is lying? He supports Garrett, at least here. He also says in the same interview that it was Billy that Garrett killed that night, he moved the body, and helped dig his grave.

Wayne in previous posts you have said that Brushy possibly made up his family tree, and embellished parts of his story. In that definition put forth by Jameson in the Cold Case, that makes Brushy a liar, just as Garrett was by this definition. It can not be both ways, Brushy embellishes(lies), and it's brushed off as an old man not remembering exactly how things went, instead of him just making things up as he goes along. Garrett on the other hand embellishes and it means he lied about everything he did as the Sheriff of Lincoln County, up to and including the killing of BTK, or whoever you believe he killed in 1881. The historians, and researchers that Jameson continually degrades in this book, are used to support certain facts when they go along with his beliefs and then brushed aside as nonsense when they dont. Again in my opinion only, little is put forth in this book that bolsters Brushy's story of being Billy, in fact some of the evidence that Mr. Sedarwall found in records and interviews directly contradict Brushy's claims on various events during the LCW.

The fact I commented on Mr. Sedarwall's obvious dislike for Pat Garrett, has nothing to do with my believing every word Garrett wrote or had written about his time hunting Billy, because I don't. Doesn't have one thing to do with my not being a Brushy believer at all. I believe Steve Sedarwall found facts about the counterfeit ring that may have never come to light because it was believed to be such a small part of Billy's story, even though they are important to the overall legend. 

[MissyS]

wannabe12,
I meant in my post that in the book Jameson pretty much labeled Garrett as a liar and also a thief he even devoted a chapter to this in Chapter 15. I believe because of this there may be persons that won't accept any of the other evidence in it, and dismiss all of the book because they believe Garrett's word as fact, or that he was an honest sheriff and not corrupt as the books implies, I did not mean to imply this to you, I also believe there are persons that won't even buy the book because Jameson wrote books about Brushy in the past that they don't agree with, many Brushy naysayers also believe Garrett killed Billy some even believe his book as factual history, maybe historians included? and won't buy or read it and dismiss any research, and I feel that's unfortunate, that was the point I was trying to make. and maybe i'm wrong in believing that?, But I didn't mean to direct  this to you or even insinuate that you believe Garrett's book. or believe everything Garrett said. I don't even know  that, anyway your entitled to your opinions about the book, I didn't want to argue about it, actually I  was anxious for someone  to finished reading it so we can discuss some of the interesting things In it.
In that Jesus Silva's interview with Jack Hull in 1937, Silva mentions stopping under a tree when the Kid strolled over after just getting into town tired, I believe they had a beer, and Billy tells him he's going to get something to eat and not long after Silva heard the shots. Silva described the tree as a Cottonwood tree, but in Garrett's statement he used the word orchard and John Poe said it was a peach orchard. Why the difference? was the Cottonwood tree also in the peach orchard?

[MissyS]

Something discovered from Jameson's new book, that there was actually a hallway between the porch door and the entry door to Pete Maxwell's bedroom, so how could Billy have backed into the doorway as told? It doesn't make sense, he would have to back down a hall and then turn and back into the bedroom door, what are your thoughts about that?