Talk:Pat Garrett/Archive 1

Archive 1

Christopher Marrone also portrays Garrett

Christopher Marrone also portrays Garrett in the 2012 film Abraham lincoln vs. zombies. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2246549/fullcredits#cast74.140.165.205 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Garrett at Sumner

According to the 2004 documentary "Gunfighters: Billy the Kid" on The Learning Channel, Garrett returned to Ft. Sumner specifically because he was told that the Kid had escaped execution, killing the two guards, and returned there. It suggests that Ft. Sumner was the place that the Kid regarded as home (having friends and a girlfriend) and that Garrett's approach to Sumner was slow and cautious (he travelled only at night), probably because he knew the Kid would kill him if he saw him. Thus, he managed to sneak in at night and shoot the Kid.

Eradicator (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

TV is not the appropriate source for the facts of history. Lobdillj (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The story of Garrett shooting McCarty is a lot like the usual story about Garrett shooting Bonney. Bonney's death is missing from this article, and yet that's the main thing Pat Garrett was famous for. [unsigned]

McCarty IS Bonney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootseven (talk • contribs) 20:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Birthday and more

http://www.linecamp.com/museums/americanwest/western_names/garrett_pat/garrett_pat.html Many places say it was feb 28th he died, not 29th, so let's investigate, also... did he really shoot the kid, but was it in the back?

He died on the 29th of February, the web page you site has it wrong. Secondary sources you can check on this include Pat Garrett, The Story of a Western Lawman by Leon Metz, The West of Billy the Kid by Frederick Nolan, and Murder on the White Sands, The Disappearance of Albert and Henry Fountain by Corey Recko, among many many others. comment added by Shootseven —Preceding comment was added at 03:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Debate over facts of death

Are there any serious historians today who doubt Brazel was the killer? I ask not to be contentious or snarky, but because I feel like the article as it is (I just tinkered a bit) presents the other "killers" almost as equally plausible alternative theories, especially since the part about most historians agreeing it was Brazel doesn't come until the very end of the section.

Really, I'm curious: does anyone know of a serious historian who holds on to one of the alternate theories? I mean, no historian that I have ever heard really thinks Jim Miller did the killing. If no one has any objections, when I get home tonight I'd like to make it clear in the first paragraph that almost everybody thinks Brazel did it, and then present the others as outdated theories, primarily of historical interest because of the Pat Garrett legend. Ford MF 00:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are serious historians who doubt that Brazel was the killer. I would refer you to my article, “Rethinking the Murder of Pat Garrett”, by Jerry J. Lobdill, Journal of the Wild West History Association, August 2011. At the annual conference of the Wild West History Association in July 2010 at Ruidoso, NM there was an entire evening panel discussion devoted to the question of who killed Pat Garrett. The presentations were followed by a vote of the audience (approximately 200 members). There are five leading candidates for the title, Wayne Brazel, Carl Adamson, W. W. Cox, Print Rhode, and Jim Miller. There was one panelist for each of the five candidates. The panel member who made the case for Jim Miller was Ellis Lindsey, who is writing a biography of Jim Miller. The panel member who made the case for Wayne Brazel was Leon G. Metz, biographer of Pat Garrett. The case for Rhode was based almost entirely on the fact that he confessed and stood trial. The case for Miller was based on Miller’s modus operandi in his many assassinations, the fact that the entire case was based on the statement of Carl Adamson (Miller’s relative through marriage, and a known collaborator in previous crimes committed by Miller). The cases for Adamson, Rhode, and Cox were judged weak in the vote, but Brazel won the vote, and Miller came in second.

Metz stated in his1973 biography of Garrett that practically no one believed that Brazel was the killer. Lobdillj (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Whoops! I wrote, "The case for Rhode was based almost entirely on the fact that he confessed and stood trial.” That was an unintended error. I meant Brazel instead of Rhode.Lobdillj (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Relating to above on Garret's book

Can it be trusted to tell the true circumstances of Billy the Kid's death? He may have been trying to patch up his reputation. He wasn't well liked, from what it sounds, by any major politician, and he offended the one who did (specifically TR). He doesn't seem to be the most reputable person, from who his friends are. And there had always been controversy over the Kid's death.

So Garrett had every reason to lie.

I don't really know though. Just suggesting maybe Garret's book isn't the most unbiased source.

The kid was NOT carrying a revolver if he had , garrettt would have been the dead one, billy was a much better shot and a lot faster. Garrett , from all believable sources, got billy by surprise while Billy was going to the kitchen to get a late night snack , so he didnt have any weapon but a kitchen knife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.184.85 (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Truth of killing the Kid

• 1. He didn't know Billy's real name, Henry McCarty. He thought it was William Bonney.
• 2. He shot the Kid in Fort Sumner, at the home of the Maxwells.
• 3. The Kid fired one shot from a revolver, missed entirely.
• 4. The kid was carrying a revolver and a kitchen knife.
• 5. Garrett fired twice, second shot missing entirely.
• 6. The shot from Garret's revolver ripped the Kid's ventricles.
• 7. The kid was dying when he fired his shot.
• 8. Garret used a revolver, not a Sharps rifle.

All of this was taken from Garrett's book, "The Authentic Life of Billy, the Kid"

Commander Anonymous 72.84.133.28 19:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The most respected versions of the killing of Billy, written by historians, say that Billy did not fire a single shot. "The Authentic Life of Billy, the Kid” is not considered to be reliable in this regard. See “Pat Garrett-- the Story of a Western Lawman”, by Leon G. Metz, p 117 Lobdillj (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Garret and McCarty/Bonney Friends or not?

At one point in the the article it clearly states without dispute that Garret and McCarty were friends from Garret's saloon keeping days. Later in the article when it discusses that Garret's reputation was tarnished at the thought that he betrayed and killed a friend, there is some question as to whether the two really knew each other or not. It would seem that this article should be consistent in stating whether a prior friendship definitely existed or is at dispute, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.122.207 (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Religious Beliefs?

I think I read somewhere in a book on Roosevelt that Garrett was an atheist or an agnostic, or at least was rumored to be. There doesn't seem to be any information on this in the article here, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertigo963 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Too much detail?

Jack DeMattos – Please before you continue to make this article less and less encyclopedic and more like a book, I ask you to consider the need for detailed information that can be found and read in reliable sources, instead. I have left many of your edits untouched; however, some that I did not remove can be considered unencyclopedic detail. Rather than add all that detail to the article, why not improve this article with more inline citations? Be prosperous! Paine  21:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Holy moly yes, too much detail. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed! Feel free to whack away at the flowery language. Jack has been asked repeatedly to tone it down. He's been blocked for 48 hours because it hasn't responded to these requests. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 04:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)