|
Post by Wayne Land on Oct 10, 2012 13:51:42 GMT -5
nmjames, You wanted to know why I say the coroner's report was fake. Rather than retype or rephrase all this, I'm pasting a copy from Nick McCarty's website regarding the inconsistencies with the accounts of the coroner's juries. I'm trusting Nick doesn't mind being quoted here: <<First off, according to Paco Anaya, the Rudulph jury's verdict was completely fake and written entirely by Pete Maxwell and/or Manuel Abreau, as ordered by Pat Garrett to make up for the original verdict he himself wrote and then lost. To support this, Anaya claims that two of the men named on the verdict did not live at Sumner at the time, those two being Milnor Rudulph and Pedro Anto Lucero. Although Anaya claims the original verdict Garrett wrote was lost, no contemporary source backs up Anaya's claim of it ever having existed in the first place. Of the other five men Anaya claims were on this first jury, none of them ever came forward and supported Anaya's claim of their involvement. Basically, Anaya's word is the only evidence the first jury and its verdict ever existed. If the Rudulph jury actually existed and viewed the body of Billy at the Maxwell house on the morning of the 15th, then this directly conflicts with the accounts of John Poe, Jesus Silva, and other Sumner residents, who maintained the body was removed a very short time after the shooting took place and dressed for a wake. It seems unlikely that the body would be taken, dressed and cleaned for a wake, then returned to where it had been laying for the benefit of the jury, only to be reclaimed afterwards for burial. As stated above, neither verdict was ever officially filed. A search of the records of all the counties in New Mexico proves this assertion. In the 1930s, historian Maurice G. Fulton discovered a photostatic copy of the Rudulph verdict inside the Capital Building in Santa Fe. How he found this, or how a photostatic copy was made at all, has never been explained. Regardless, after copies of his discovery were made, the hardcopy was again lost. On the photostatic copy discovered by Fulton, although it is written almost entirely in Spanish, it quotes Billy as asking "Who is it?" in the Maxwell bedroom in English. This conflicts with the accounts of Garrett and Poe, who both claimed Billy asked the questions in Spanish. The Rudulph verdict concludes with "the gratitude of the whole community is due to the said Garrett for his act and that he deserves to be rewarded." This is very out of place, since it was a well-known fact that Billy was friends with nearly everyone in the small community of Fort Sumner, and was friends with the specific members of the jury. Garrett himself claimed that he felt threatened by the townspeople following the shooting. Therefore, it seems doubtful that Billy's friends would recommend his killer deserving a reward. Perhaps a minor point, but it should be noted: Justice Segura, who was claimed to have headed both juries, makes no mention at all in his record book regarding the death of Billy the Kid. At the time, Billy was the most famous criminal in New Mexico, and his death definitely would have been an event worthy to be noted by the local Justice of the Peace. >> Any thoughts on all this? If you'd like to read the entire page, it says a great deal about the conflicts between Poe and Garrett's accounts as well. Here's a link: www.angelfire.com/mi2/billythekid/qandi.html
|
|
|
Post by chivato1011 on Oct 10, 2012 14:26:48 GMT -5
NM James
Thanks for the info, I will get both books you have recommended. I am very familiar with Rube Burrows. He was a native of Alabama and was killed near where I work. Most people in Alabama dont know his name. He has been long forgotten. You are right, he was not active until the late 1870's early 1880's.
Also Brushy stated in his interview he did not like double action six (6) guns, we all know he loved the Colt Thunderer.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Oct 10, 2012 21:59:41 GMT -5
Wayne,
I have seen all of this stuff before. If you will get both Garrett's and Poe's statments about what happen the night of July 14, 1881, read , just what happen that night. Keep them open and then read Nick's and the anglefire statements, go to Garrett's and Poe's statements you can compare what was said.
Let me try to explain one more time on the Corner's Report.
1. I have seen a picture of the orginal Corner's Report. It was in Spanish. It was hand written. In one of the many books that I have, there is a picture of it also. I have a copy of the Corner's Report in English and it is typed. I have been told the orginal is in Santa Fe but I have not seen it.
2. In Morrison's book on page 108, he states at the top of the page: Report of the Coroner's Jury (tranlation of a photostat copy of a purported original which was never filed in San Miguel County.) Then he has the Coroner's Report.
3. In Morrison's book on page's 114 and 115 he has listed as Governor Ritch's Refusal to Approve Garrett's Application. ( I am not going to type the whole thing but what I am trying to show you.) It is dated July 21, 1881. Now remember on July 21, 1881, I don't think it was a photostat copy. I feel it was the orginal thing. NOT A FAKE. and here is what Acting Governor Ritch had to say. Garrett had appeared and presented a bill for $500 claiming it as a reward offered on or about the 7th of May 1881 by the late Governor, Lew Wallace.
As evidence of said offer having been made the affidavit of publication thereof made by Chas. W. Green, the editor and manager of the Daily New Mexican, was presented with said bill, as also was presented a statement of the proceedings and verdict of a coroner's jury at Ft. Sumner in San Miguel County upon the body of said Bonny, captured as aforesaid, and a statement of Garrett directed to this office of his doings in the premises.
You can read the whole statement in Morrison's book but at the end, I think this part should be said. in part: Believing however, that Mr. Garrett, has an equitable claim against the Territory for said reward;.
Again, what I am trying to show you is that there was a Real Corner's Report and it was filed in Santa Fe. in part to show you why I feel it was. On the following day the papers with the opinion of Hon. Wm. Breeden Attorney General were filed.
4. I don't know where the orginal Coroner's Report is but there was one in 1881 and it was filed.
I hope this helps you and makes sense. I have had several very busy days and am tired.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Oct 10, 2012 22:07:54 GMT -5
chivato1011,
Any time, I think you will enjoy Morrison's book. I use it all the time when people ask me about Brushy. You also need to get High Noon in Lincoln by Robert Utley, The West of Billy the Kid, by Frederick Nolan and Pat Garrett, The Story Of A Western Lawman by Leon C. Metz. I have had the pleasure of meeting the three men and treasure their knowledge and research.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Oct 11, 2012 10:16:45 GMT -5
nmjames,
You asked why I said the report was a "fake." The issue for me is not whether the report existed and was filed. Whether it was filed or not, the issue remains whether it was written by the coroner's jury or written by Garrett. Paco Anaya was there and he said it was written by Garrett and that two of the members listed didn't even live in Fort Sumner at the time. If it was written by Garrett himself, the term "fake" is applicable. Maybe we could get a copy of the hand written document and a copy of Garrett's handwriting and have a comparison done?
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Oct 11, 2012 21:37:53 GMT -5
Wayne,
Type in Coroner's Report on Billy the Kid, find Coroner's Jury Report anglefire and you will see the first Coroner's Report in Milnor Rudulph's hand writting. If you have any of Garrett's writting, you can compare.
Milnor Rudolph lived in Sunnyside, above Fort Sumner, in 1878, but returned to Rociada in 1882. He was Speaker of the House in New Mexico in 1870. Sunnyside is just above what was Fort Sumner then and is now Fort Sumner. Milnor is on the 1880 June Census so Poco Anaya is wrong about him being in Rociada.
Pedro Antonio Lucero in also on the 1880 San Miguel Censes but does not state what town he was living in. He may not have lived in Fort Sumner per say but was there when Billy was Killed and appointed to serve on the Jury. However, he may have lived in Fort Sumner.
If you will go to the anglefire you posted (Reply #45) It states Basically, Anaya's word is the only evidence the first Jury and it's verdict ever existed.
You can go to page 121 of Paco Anaya's book, I Buried Billy if you want to read what he had to say.
Poco Anaya states that Billy the Kid was killed so why would Garrett fake the Coroner's Report?
Do you think maby Garrett had Maxwell or someone that could read Spanish write the Report in English? (I don't know that he did but you seem to have a hang up on the Coroner's Report.) I don't think it was a fake and even if it was Billy was just as dead. Per. Pat Garrett, John W. Poe, Pete Maxwell, Deluvina Maxwell, Paulita Maxwell, and Poco Anaya plus many more.
You also state, If it was written by Garrett himself, the term "fake" is applicable. If Garrett did write it but the Jury members signed it, would it be a fake? (Not saying Garrett did write it) because it is said and I agree Rudulph did. In the West of Billy the Kid by Mr. Nolan he states, In flowing longhand Rudulph..........
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Oct 12, 2012 14:00:18 GMT -5
I had no intention of turning this coroner's report into a lengthy debate. Bottom line is, there is reason to question it's authenticity based on Paco Anaya's comments. I can probably find a sample of Garrett's handwriting but without even searching for that the document itself has signatures that are suppose to be those of Rudulph and Seguro. In my opinion neither of those match the writing in the body of the report. Even if you consider the probability that a person's signature will vary a bit from their usual handwriting, there's still some glaring differences that make me question whether the report could have been written by either of them.
If Garrett did write it himself, one must ask the question, did he speak and write Spanish fluently? Possibly, he dictated it and someone else wrote it down in Spanish. Either way, if Garrett wrote it "or" dictated it and had the jury sign it, why would it be in Spanish in the first place? Possibly so the jury members would be able to read what they were signing? It does raise some interesting questions I think.
The 1880 census shows Rudulph lived close by, but not in Fort Sumner. Why get somebody from a community that is several miles away when there were plenty of people who did live right there in old Fort Sumner? Was Rudulph a highly respected individual or was he an official of some kind making it appropriate to have him head up the jury? Now I don't know what month in 1880 the census was taken but the killing happened in July of 1881 did it not? So, Rudulph's place of residence in 1880 and in 1882 for that matter, don't tell us where he was in July of 1881. And one more question. Why would Anaya make up the story he told? What did he have to gain by making a false claim that there were two reports done?
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Oct 12, 2012 19:46:19 GMT -5
I have several copies of Garrett's hand writing and it does not match the Coroner's Report.
The date on the 1880 Census in June, 1880 and lived at Sunnyside. (On the Census it's hard to make out the side part and looks like Sunnywite. Milnor Rudolph lived there from 1878 until 1882, returned to Rociada in 1882, and remained there until his death. (Kelcher, Violence, 349-51.)
Sunnyside was said to be Seven Miles above Fort Sumner. I think you have been to Fort Sumner. If I remember right, Down town Fort Sumner where the one Museum is was called Sunnyside. Also as I said in my last post he was Speaker of the House in the 1870 legislature, he became widely known and respected throughout New Mexico.
Let's say that Poco Anaya's story is true. What does it matter? As I said before. Billy was killed that night even if the paper work was not as Garrett said it was.
Do you have the book by Paco Anaya?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Oct 12, 2012 23:41:05 GMT -5
Let's say that Poco Anaya's story is true. What does it matter? As I said before. Billy was killed that night even if the paper work was not as Garrett said it was. It matters because if the report was not written by Segura or Rudulph then what it says can't be assumed to be accurate and there is no trustworthy documentation of Billy's death. So maybe it wasn't Billy that was killed?
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Oct 13, 2012 0:18:50 GMT -5
The trouble with your statement is you want to pick and choose just part of what Poco Anaya had to say. Poco Anaya state's many times in his story that Pat Garrett killed Billy the Kid. Not only that but they have statements from L.C. Chino Silva and Vincente Lovato.
How can you say that Poco's statement on the report is true but nothing else he said is true?
This is at the end of the L.F. Silva Statement. How could all the people that saw and attended Billy the Kid's funeral cover a conspiracy for over a hundred years? No Way! Page 148.
I Agree!!!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Oct 13, 2012 9:30:05 GMT -5
I haven't read Anaya's book. If I had, maybe I'd feel differently about his statements in general. For example, did Paco claim to have actually seen the body and identified it himself? Since he says he wrote a coroner's report then I would suppose he did claim to have seen the body. If not, then the possibility remains that his statements regarding Billy's death were based on what Garrett had told him. In which case he may have believed he was telling the truth about everything, not knowing that the dead man wasn't really Billy The Kid.
I don't know whether to believe any of what Paco Anaya said. I just think if he claims he wrote the original report and the Rudulph report was written by Garrett in order to make up for losing the first one, there has to be some reason for that story. And that reason might have had to do with the wrong man being killed.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Oct 13, 2012 21:37:42 GMT -5
No Wayne you wouldn't feel any different. Paco not only states he saw Billy the Kid, he helped dress him and buried Billy. (The title of the book, I Buried Billy.) Not only does he state he saw Billy the Kid, he names many more that saw Billy the Kid. The only thing you would use is the part about Garrett writting the first report and he lost it, then he used Don Pedro Maxwell and Don Manuel Abreu to help him write another verdict and this was written in Spanish.
Paco states many times that Pat Garrett killed Billy the Kid. That is not even an issue with him. He also talks about all the people that saw Billy the Kid's body.
Page 128. 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,..................................... Notice here Paco is talking about John W. Poe and Thomas "Kip" McKinney as Pat's companions and that Billy was dead.
Wayne, you will never find any book on Billy the Kid or the Lincoln Co. War that you will agree with, not even a little because you can't. Brushy was not Billy the Kid and you have to state that 98% of what is in them is a wrong to make Brushy the real Billy the Kid.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Oct 13, 2012 22:34:16 GMT -5
Correction: I don't "have to" believe anything but I am beginning to wonder about Paco Anaya's book so I guess I'm just going to have to buy a copy and read it. Contrary to assertions otherwise, I "am" willing to be convinced I'm wrong about Brushy. I'm not sure if that's true about everyone but then again it doesn't have to be. Maybe Anaya's book would change my mind, maybe not. I'm not ready make a decision like that based on excerpts alone. I want to read the whole thing and see what my impressions of his voracity are at that point.
I've tried to find an ebook version since that's cheaper, but no luck so far.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Oct 14, 2012 13:40:30 GMT -5
Wayne,
If you have trouble finding the book let me know, they were easy to find in this area and I should be able to find one.
|
|
|
Post by Darren on Oct 18, 2012 14:26:16 GMT -5
Ollie L. "Brushy Bill" Roberts and William Bonney aka Billy the Kid were unquestionably two different people.
They had different eye colors. Ollie L. Roberts was born in August of 1879 according to United States Census records, I don't think Billy the Kid was 1 going on 2 years old when he supposedly faked his death.
Several of The Kid's close friends confirmed he was dead before preparing the body for burial. There's no evidence that any Billy Barlow ever existed. Brushy first claimed to have rode with a now known Jesse James imposter before falsely claiming to be The Kid.
Point is, I cannot understand why so many people on here would believe something so ridiculous. The facts that I state are clear and cannot be disproven, Brushy Bill absolutely was NOT Billy the Kid.
(Possibly similar scars do not prove anything, and if that's the only evidence presented to counter the above facts then you need to find something much more convincing. Also, it's my belief that Brushy could easily have learned what he stated about The Kid's life, but why did he also get a lot of things wrong as well?)
|
|