MovieChat Forums > Young Guns II (1990) Discussion > a few reasons why pat might not have kil...

a few reasons why pat might not have killed the kid in real life?


well i remember reading about how pat garrett met with billys half brother in private conversation but his deputys were there and noticed that they both walked away laughing. why would you laugh with the man that killed your brother? i think pat told his brother that he didnt killed him and about how he let billy go free and they both laughed about fooling people.

also pat garretts own daughter has said that her father told her he didnt kill billy.
pat had already killed two people thinking they were billy, one was tom o folliard and the other was charlie bowdre, so isnt it possible it could happen a third time. and also after he shot "the kid" that night at fort sumner, one of his deputys ran in and the first words out of his mouth was "that aint the kid". and this is somebody whos actually knew what billy looked like. so why would he say that. also it was said that the person that was shot that night had a full beard and its a known fact that billy was actually only able to grow peach fuzz or whatever you call it and not a full beard.

so these things do raise an eyebrow

reply

Apparently Garrett had the body taken away after he had supposedly killed Billy and had him buried without anyone witnessing that it was in fact Billy. Normal procedure would have been for someone to identify the body other than the man who killed him (Garrett). So the fact that Garrett acted suspiciously regarding showing the body definitely raised a few eyebrows.

reply

The problem is that hat all of that is hearsay. Even from Pat Garret, he is own reflections are dubious at best. However, they remain the only primary source about The Kid in existence.

I then concluded to go and have a talk with Peter Maxwell, Esq., in whom I felt sure I could rely. We had ridden to within a short distance of Maxwell's grounds when we found a man in camp and stopped. To Poe's great surprise, he recognized in the camper an old friend and former partner, in Texas, named Jacobs. We unsaddled here, got some coffee, and, on foot, entered an orchard which runs from this point down to a row of old buildings, some of them occupied by Mexicans, not more than sixty yards from Maxwell's house. We approached these houses cautiously, and when within earshot, heard the sound of voices conversing in Spanish. We concealed ourselves quickly and listened; but the distance was too great to hear words, or even distinguish voices. Soon a man arose from the ground, in full view, but too far away to recognize. He wore a broad-brimmed hat, a dark vest and pants, and was in his shirtsleeves. With a few words, which fell like a murmur on our ears, he went to the fence, jumped it, and walked down towards Maxwell's house.

Little as we then suspected it, this man was the Kid. We learned, subsequently, that, when he left his companions that night, he went to the house of a Mexican friend, pulled off his hat and boots, threw himself on a bed, and commenced reading a newspaper. He soon, however, hailed his friend, who was sleeping in the room, told him to get up and make some coffee, adding: 'Give me a butcher knife and I will go over to Pete's and get some beef; I'm hungry.' The Mexican arose, handed him the knife, and the Kid, hatless and in his stocking-feet, started to Maxwell's, which was but a few steps distant.

When the Kid, by me unrecognized, left the orchard, I motioned to my companions, and we cautiously retreated a short distance, and, to avoid the persons whom we had heard at the houses, took another route, approaching Maxwell's house from the opposite direction. When we reached the porch in front of the building, I left Poe and McKinney at the end of the porch, about twenty feet from the door of Pete's room, and went in. It was near midnight and Pete was in bed. I walked to the head of the bed and sat down on it, beside him, near the pillow. I asked him as to the whereabouts of the Kid. He said that the Kid had certainly been about, but he did not know whether he had left or not. At that moment a man sprang quickly into the door, looking back, and called twice in Spanish, 'Who comes there?' No one replied and he came on in. He was bareheaded. From his step I could perceive he was either barefooted or in his stocking-feet, and held a revolver in his right hand and a butcher knife in his left.

He came directly towards me. Before he reached the bed, I whispered: 'Who is it, Pete?' but received no reply for a moment. It struck me that it might be Pete's brother-in-law, Manuel Abreu, who had seen Poe and McKinney, and wanted to know their business. The intruder came close to me, leaned both hands on the bed, his right hand almost touching my knee, and asked, in a low tone: -'Who are they Pete?' -at the same instant Maxwell whispered to me. 'That's him!' Simultaneously the Kid must have seen, or felt, the presence of a third person at the head of the bed. He raised quickly his pistol, a self-cocker, within a foot of my breast. Retreating rapidly across the room he cried: 'Quien es? Quien es?' 'Who's that? Who's that?') All this occurred in a moment. Quickly as possible I drew my revolver and fired, threw my body aside, and fired again. The second shot was useless; the Kid fell dead. He never spoke. A struggle or two, a little strangling sound as he gasped for breath, and the Kid was with his many victims.
But probably the best evidence that, at the very least, Brushy Bill was full of it is to compare the faces. http://www.aboutbillythekid.com/billy_vs_brushy.htmTo me, that means that Pat killed The Kid.

--
Once upon a time, we had a love affair with fire.
http://athinkersblog.com/

reply

Although I do aggree with you Joshhutchins on a lot of this stuff being hearsay since there is not enough evidence for what happened it 1881, I would not reccomend usin aboutbillythekid.com as a refrence. The site has many holes in it.
Examples Using Geneva Pittmans family bible to state he was born in 1879. She was the only one in the family to claim he was born Oliver P Roberts, most if not all of the rest of the family stated that he was born William Henry Roberts on December 31, 1859, with Brushy Bill having the family bible to prove it. The family claims he took over Olivers identity when he past away.
Secondly She claims that he asked for the pardon, forgeting the one promised 70 years prior. However records show that when William Morrison initially called he stated that he wanted to get the pardon for Billy promised by then governor Lew Wallace.
Third she claims that he could not answer simple questions about Billy's life, however there is no evidence to support this claim. The sites author also conveniently leaves out the documented fact that Brushy Bill had a stroke prior to the meeting, and the Governor refused to look at any evidence to support Brushys claim. Brushy never got a chance to give his testimony, so there was none to contradict.
4th Brushy never claimed that he never killed Bob Ollinger and James Bell, In William Morrisons notes he wrote in detail the events that Brushy described about the day he escaped and killed Ollinger and Bell.
5th she claims that several authors claim Brushy was illiterate, however William Morrison wrote in his notes that he had seen and read many of Brushy's journals, and hase seen him write several pages of notes.
And finaly on this post the site uses author W.C. Jamesons claim that Brushy Bill Roberts is illiterate in his book Return of the outlaw, however that same site fails to mention said author also claims in his book Billy the kid Beyond the Grave that Billy the kid could possibly be illiterate also, and suggests the two men are one and the same

reply

Read what I wrote again:

But probably the best evidence that, at the very least, Brushy Bill was full of it is to compare the faces.
While I have read everything you have said before, it has nothing to do with with what I said. I was drawing attention to their faces. They look nothing alike.

--
Once upon a time, we had a love affair with fire.
http://athinkersblog.com/

reply

You are right on the picture they show. I apologize for not mentioning it in my last post. However a picture analasys done by the Acton Bovik study from the University of Texas have stated that picture doesn't match Brushy Bill either. But you are right on that picture not anywhere resembling Billy the Kid.

The Acton Bovic study using the same methods used by the CIA, FBI, Interpol, KGB, among others compared a picture of Brushy in 1949 to Billy's was a 90% match the difference could be explained by age and dental work.

reply