Persistent Controversy
Did Pat Garrett kill the Kid? Maybe he did. There are those who vigorously defend the Garrett claim. They are quick to dismiss the contradictions, irregularities, circumstantial evidence and unanswered questions that refuse to go away. More than one hundred thirty years after the events of July 14, 1881 anomalies dog the Garrett legend. They are the reason we are left with, ‘Maybe’ he did.
The publication of Garrett’s book itself seems a little self-serving. The printed word firmly established his claim on having killed the Kid. In the book, he suggests Poe and McKinney questioned the identity of the victim at the time of the shooting. He then goes on to refute the allegation. According to Poe, he initially supported Garrett’s claim. His doubts and the question of mistaken identity came later. Garrett’s book, published more than a year after the encounter in Pete Maxwell’s bedroom, seems a convenient response to those suspicions.
As recently as this past year True West Magazine reported on the discovery of a July 19, 1881 Las Vegas Daily Gazette article on the Kid’s death as reprinted by the Colorado Springs Weekly Gazette July 23, 1881. Garrett adherents seized on the article, based on an interview with Garrett himself, to put an end to the controversy once and for all. When the article is compared to the Poe memoir and Garrett’s book, it in fact adds to the controversy.
The article’s version of the events of July 14, 1881 agrees with Poe’s memoir as to who entered the house first. Both disagree with Garrett’s later dated book. If Garrett was interviewed for the article, why does this account disagree with the account in his book? Could Garrett have changed his story? If so, why? As we discussed two weeks ago the question of who entered the house first is significant to the victim’s behavior that night. The assertion the Kid entered the house after confronting strangers standing watch outside is inconsistent with the rational behavior of an accomplished fugitive with a death sentence hanging over his head. One well respected Garrett adherent dismisses this behavior as ‘The Kid made a mistake.’
The article goes on to suggest the ‘Kid’ victim, “. . . had allowed his beard to grow and had attempted to disguise himself as a Mexican by darkening his skin by use of some sort of root.” This contention is interesting in two respects. Neither Garrett’s book nor Poe’s memoir mention an attempted disguise. Did the reporter make that assertion up out of whole cloth; or is it again possible Garrett changed his story? Could the suggestion of a disguise have been an early attempt to cover a case of mistaken identity? Then there is the suggestion of a Mexican disguise. By both Poe and Garrett’s accounts the victim spoke Spanish. The Kid spoke Spanish; but it wasn’t his first language. Could it be the victim’s first language was Spanish?
Did Pat Garrett kill Billy the Kid? Historians are convinced. They have Pat Garrett’s word on it. The state of New Mexico is convinced. They’ve got an iconic legend and the tourist attractions that go with it. One hundred thirty years later troubling contradictions, irregularities and questions still remain.
Once again we come down to the historical record. A book accepted by most as historical fact; and the memoir of a respected witness to the events of July 14, 1881. If you start with John Poe’s memoir and lay out all the pieces that don’t fit the Garrett narrative on a path leading to John Miller, you get a very plausible story. Can you prove it? No. Can you prove the Garrett claim- beyond the shadow of doubt? Obviously not. If you could, we wouldn’t have a one hundred thirty year old controversy.
For purposes of this post series the important point is: The historical records don’t agree. You can’t prove either case. Any conclusion asserts some subjective opinion. What lessons of history can you draw from records as flawed as these? Next we’ll look at a case, again based on the printed word, with the possibility of media bias.
Next Week: An Imperfect Portrait
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
The publication of Garrett’s book itself seems a little self-serving. The printed word firmly established his claim on having killed the Kid. In the book, he suggests Poe and McKinney questioned the identity of the victim at the time of the shooting. He then goes on to refute the allegation. According to Poe, he initially supported Garrett’s claim. His doubts and the question of mistaken identity came later. Garrett’s book, published more than a year after the encounter in Pete Maxwell’s bedroom, seems a convenient response to those suspicions.
As recently as this past year True West Magazine reported on the discovery of a July 19, 1881 Las Vegas Daily Gazette article on the Kid’s death as reprinted by the Colorado Springs Weekly Gazette July 23, 1881. Garrett adherents seized on the article, based on an interview with Garrett himself, to put an end to the controversy once and for all. When the article is compared to the Poe memoir and Garrett’s book, it in fact adds to the controversy.
The article’s version of the events of July 14, 1881 agrees with Poe’s memoir as to who entered the house first. Both disagree with Garrett’s later dated book. If Garrett was interviewed for the article, why does this account disagree with the account in his book? Could Garrett have changed his story? If so, why? As we discussed two weeks ago the question of who entered the house first is significant to the victim’s behavior that night. The assertion the Kid entered the house after confronting strangers standing watch outside is inconsistent with the rational behavior of an accomplished fugitive with a death sentence hanging over his head. One well respected Garrett adherent dismisses this behavior as ‘The Kid made a mistake.’
The article goes on to suggest the ‘Kid’ victim, “. . . had allowed his beard to grow and had attempted to disguise himself as a Mexican by darkening his skin by use of some sort of root.” This contention is interesting in two respects. Neither Garrett’s book nor Poe’s memoir mention an attempted disguise. Did the reporter make that assertion up out of whole cloth; or is it again possible Garrett changed his story? Could the suggestion of a disguise have been an early attempt to cover a case of mistaken identity? Then there is the suggestion of a Mexican disguise. By both Poe and Garrett’s accounts the victim spoke Spanish. The Kid spoke Spanish; but it wasn’t his first language. Could it be the victim’s first language was Spanish?
Did Pat Garrett kill Billy the Kid? Historians are convinced. They have Pat Garrett’s word on it. The state of New Mexico is convinced. They’ve got an iconic legend and the tourist attractions that go with it. One hundred thirty years later troubling contradictions, irregularities and questions still remain.
Once again we come down to the historical record. A book accepted by most as historical fact; and the memoir of a respected witness to the events of July 14, 1881. If you start with John Poe’s memoir and lay out all the pieces that don’t fit the Garrett narrative on a path leading to John Miller, you get a very plausible story. Can you prove it? No. Can you prove the Garrett claim- beyond the shadow of doubt? Obviously not. If you could, we wouldn’t have a one hundred thirty year old controversy.
For purposes of this post series the important point is: The historical records don’t agree. You can’t prove either case. Any conclusion asserts some subjective opinion. What lessons of history can you draw from records as flawed as these? Next we’ll look at a case, again based on the printed word, with the possibility of media bias.
Next Week: An Imperfect Portrait
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
No comments have been added yet.
