Deseret News | Was Duchesne farmer the Sundance Kid?

Reader comments
Was Duchesne farmer the Sundance Kid?

1,084 comments | Read story

Ghosttown Bob | 1:16 p.m. May 4, 2009

Anonymous
"That makes Donna Ernst a member of the Bill Long crowd." Two plus two does not equal five, even if you say it does. I guess your trouble with math is why you have been unable, all of this time, to realize there were problems with your timeline. First Morrell, and now Gillepsie.

AMP | 4:28 p.m. May 4, 2009

It's been quite a few weeks over the 8 week mark. Why have we not heard from anyone with news for so long? I admit I'm interested to see the outcome but I am definitely losing faith here...

Anonymous | 7:46 a.m. May 5, 2009

GTB
You remind me of a one eyed calf, round and round, you go, dont know where you been nor where youre going.

It seems you just cant comprehend what Gillespie implied. Harry Longabaugh probably did not participate in the Belle Fourche bank robbery. Bill Long was never mentioned in the letter. Ernst got it right, ask her to explain it to you.

Comments continue below

Kid Lutefisk | 9:04 a.m. May 5, 2009

Is it possible for someone to tell me how long it takes for a comment to get posted? Because Mr. Buck, Anonymous, Ms Robison, and Ghosttown Bob were kind enough to reply to me, I responded to them. Quite awhile ago. I smell a rat. Then again, it might be lutefisk.

As of 1992 I determined that computers were instruments of the devil, a fad, and would soon go away. I am still waiting for my prophesy to bear fruit. Perhaps it shall -- concurrent with the arrival of the Long/Longabaugh Test Results.

Kid Lutefisk | 9:39 a.m. May 5, 2009

Anonymous:
Gillespie didn't "imply" anything. He stated quite plainly that Longabaugh was at Slater/Baggs/Dixon/Savery on the date of the Bell Forche robbery. Concurrent with Gillespie's letter, Longabaugh's attorney asked for a continuance in order to transport his witnesses to trial and named Gillespie, Al Reader, and Mrs. McIntosh among others. At that moment in time Bill Long was at Fremont, tripping the light fantastic with Luzernia.

If Ernst in her new book says that Gillespie didn't name Longabaugh she is quite right. He doesn't. It will be very interesting to see how she treats this issue in view of the court records, the Gillespie monograph (not letter) the WPA Gouldy monograph, David Gillespie's WPA interview, and the Oliver St. material. In each of the listed documents Longabaugh is specifically named and two of them have David Gillespie driving Longabaugh in a buggy from Slater to the Reader Ranch to see a cowboy "friend".

Then too, we have the question of W. D. "Billy" Smith being one of the arresting officers in both 1887 and 1897. In view of Smith's reputation it is unlikely he was confused about Longabaugh's identity.

Kid Lutefisk | 9:49 a.m. May 5, 2009

(Continued)If you look at the total of the material referenced here and then add the Fraser/Hadsell interview of Bob Lee in Laramie, I don't see how it is possible for a rational mind to conclude anything other than Longabaugh was on the Little Snake from January, 1897 as reported by the Craig Courrier through August 1, 1897 as reported by everyone else save Bob Lee.

Anonymous | 10:04 a.m. May 5, 2009

Get over it Lute, it's already in the can, move on to Butch.

Daniel Buck | 11:35 a.m. May 5, 2009

Kid L.,

There is a brief note at the bottom of the comment page listing the reasons why a comment will not be posted.

Dan

Anonymous | 1:23 p.m. May 5, 2009

There is a brief note at the bottom of the comment page listing the reasons why a comment will not be posted.
Dan

"Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted."

What would we do without Dan?

Archer834 | 2:37 p.m. May 5, 2009

For some reason my post never made it. What's going on with the DNA results? That would pretty much solve the whole thing. Either didn't get a good sample to compare, it DID or DID NOT match or it's still being processed.

Welllllll?

Kid Lutefisk | 2:46 p.m. May 5, 2009

Ms Robison:
Please accept my apology for a tardy response. This is not my medium. Quill pens, parchment, and squat bottles of India Ink are far more in keeping with my personality and abilities.

I believe there were three exhumations of Bill Long.

Exhumation #1: The first exhumation was conducted some time prior to January, 2007. I corresponded with two individuals involved from approximately January, 2007, to approximately March, 2007. This exhumation was conducted pursuant to a court order. Subsequent to the exhumation, some family members expressed the opinion that the family member petitioning the court for the exhumation order did not possess sufficient clarity of mind to competently execute the petition. The purpose of the exhumation was to attempt to verify that Bill Long was Bill McCarty. The possibility originated with Perry Jackson, son of Jerimiah "Kid" Jackson and Chloe Jane Morrell Jackson. Perry's published statement said of Bill Long: "We all knew he was an outlaw. I think he was Bill McCarty." The person who performed the exhumation gave Bill Long's height at death as 5' 7", or McCarty's presumed height. A qualified laboratory extracted DNA from Long's remains.

Gaylen Robison | 3:06 p.m. May 5, 2009

Hi Harold Iverson, AKA GTB, and Kid Lutefisk. Are you really an Ex Pinkerton Agent? Are you absolutely not positive that you did not misrepresent?

Kid Lutefisk | 3:18 p.m. May 5, 2009

The DNA extracted from Long's remains did not match a presumed McCarty donor sample. At the time of the exhumation Long's skull and femur were removed and the rest of the remains re-interred.

Exhumation # 2: If the document entitled "Preliminary Report, Examination of William Henry Long of Duchesne, Utah, November 15, 2007" by John M. McCullough is valid, then the second exhumation took place on or about November 15, 2007, and Dr. McCullough was present. And if the referenced report is valid, Dr. McCullough found Long to be 5' 8" tall at death, just as I stated in my comment.

Exhumation # 3: Appears to have taken place in December, 2008, judging from comments on this blog, including your own.

Communication with persons involved directly or tangentially with all exhumations informed me that Long DNA from Exhumation #1 was compared to that of a presumed Longabaugh Donor in California following exhumation #2. The samples did not match. The theory was advanced that the Long DNA sample from exhumation #1 had become contaminated and that the contamination resulted in a "no-match" comparison. Thus, the need for Exhumation #3. Let me know where I've gone wrong.

Kid Lutefisk | 3:54 p.m. May 5, 2009

Mr. Buck:

My apolgies to you as well, Sir. I've located the Word Counter, and I'll let you judge for yourself how appropriate my comment is.

1.) Specifically. Siringo, Cowboy Detective, pp 51-65. I am using the Bison Books edition. Please refer to chapter III. The other major reference is Patterson, Historical Atlas of the Outlaw West, pp 211-212. Gatlin/McCoy, Moore, Hall/Nichols also appear in Riata & Spurs, Lonestar Cowboy, and a Texas Cowboy. I'm quite sure you're familiar with the Pinkerton files on the McCoy gang and Thomas Eskridge a/k/a Peg Leg Watson.

I find the material descriptive of a Buenos Aires dentist at the head of a tough gang of outlaws numbering in the 100s in 1887, connected to Texan Tom Nichols/Hall simply astounding. When you and Ms Meadows considered and wrote about the reasons or reason Butch and Sundance lit out for South America, wouldn't this group of interlocking people, places,and outlaw characters predating their 1901 arrival by 14 years merit significant space in your book? I am greatly troubled by your failure to even discuss it.

Kid Lutefisk | 4:27 p.m. May 5, 2009

(continued)As far as Butch's letter from Santa Cruz is concerned I found several items highly significant. Near the end of his letter Butch says he and his companion are heading south and will be back at Concordia in approximately a month. Paraguay is, of course, south. The description of the land Hutcheon wanted is perfectly described and tallies exactly with the Rickard/Musgrave operations along the Rio Paraguay. The Tanners can't issolate arrival times in Paraquay for either Rickard or Musgrave. The Tanners give 1911 as Jano's arrival time but state that she might have arrived earlier or that Musgrave arrived earlier and told her about it. The Jebens family claimed 1910 or 1911 as the arrival time, but the 1910 Federal Census shows them absent from Little Snake River. At worst, all the significant players in Paraguay are moving toward Paraguay 24-30 months after the date of Butch's letter. If so, it is not credible that the target site wasn't selected before that -- and if you look at the 1908 and 1909
reports within that context, I believe we can determine the approximate time frame the Rio Paraguay was selected.

Anonymous | 4:27 p.m. May 5, 2009

"When you and Ms Meadows considered and wrote about the reasons or reason Butch and Sundance lit out for South America, wouldn't this group of interlocking people, places,and outlaw characters predating their 1901 arrival by 14 years merit significant space in your book? I am greatly troubled by your failure to even discuss it."

Come on KL, you can't mean that. Why our man Dan, will discuss anything. Especially what he has spoken.

Daniel Buck | 5:23 p.m. May 5, 2009

KL,

Siringo presented two slightly different versions of the 1887 incident, 25 years later in A Cowboy Detective (1912), p. 63, and 40 years later in Riata and Spurs (1927, 2nd. ed. rev.).

1912 version: Hall gave Bogan/McCory/Gatlin a letter of introduction to a dentist in Buenos Aires as a passport into a gang of 100 outlaws operating 1,200 miles from Buenos Aires. Hall showed Siringo a letter from a Texas murderer, Moore, perhaps the gang's leader and the dentist.

1927 version: Bogan sails to Buenos Aires where "he found a friend in the person of a dentist who was a badman from Texas, and a friend to Tom Hall." Hall had already sent the dentist a letter asking him "to assist Gatlin in reaching an outlaw band on the Pampas, twelve hundred miles from Buenos Aires."

In version two, Siringo implies that he got the story secondhand from Len Woodruff.

cont'd

Daniel Buck | 5:26 p.m. May 5, 2009

1,200 miles from BsAs, by the way, puts the gang operating either in the Pacific Ocean 400 miles off the coast of Chile: in the Antarctic Ocean 200 miles south of Tierra del Fuego; or somewhere in Brazil, north of Bolivia.

There is no evidence in the Argentine literature of any such Texas badman dentist or any such gang, amphibious or not.

Why did BC&SK go to Argentina? By all accounts to homestead a ranch, which is what they did until they got chased out. News of free land in Argentina was published in the US newspapers; other ranchers in the Rockies had gone down there. Coincidentally, a dentist did have a role in their homesteading in Patagonia : New Yorker George Newbery, who was the American vice-consul in BsAS , as well as a land developer and rancher.

Dan

Kid Lutefisk | 5:46 p.m. May 5, 2009

(Continued) The reason I believe Dodge's 1909 letter to be the most critical of the three groups of letters is it closes the circle with Hall/Nichols exactly where we began in 1887. McParlan's comments are not context, they are criticism. You know perfectly well from reading the relevant personnel files that Robert and William, between 1902 and 1914, spent many hours corresponding about ways and means to pension off their old retainer at full salary without hurting his feelings. That is context for McParlan's comment. Context for Dodge's leter is that Maxwell, having arrived in Goldfield, Nevada as a strike breaker within the time frame of the Nelson-Gans fight promoted by Rickard is now back in Utah with Butch, Nichols, and McCarty. The 1910 Census will show Mid Nichols in the Nevada goldfields and Billy Sawtelle pouring Dan Parker a drink at the Iron Saloon at Parowan, Utah. Context, Mr. Buck. Context.

Ms Meadows discussed Billy Sawtelle leaving Fremont County, where Bert Charter is ranching and freighting and Elzy Lay is ranching and bar tending, going to SA, and comming back with news of Butch's death. Why not discuss context?

Kid Lutefisk | 6:29 p.m. May 5, 2009

Chuckle. Well done, Mr. Buck, well done. However at the conclusion of your most excellent and entertaining comment you gave yourself the slightest chance of escape by dropping the name George Newberry. Of course, George Newberry is the dentist --and temporary diplomat at Buenos Aires. His brother Ralph Lamertine Newberry oversaw ranching operations at Nahuel Huapi and had substantial interests in gold and silver mining attempts in Bolivia. The Newberry neighbors at Nahuel Huapi were Jared Jones and John Crockett who arrived in 1887 exactly as Ms Meadows wrote on Page 56 of DUBAS, and of course the Dentist in Buenos Aires with the outlaws in Patagonia in 1887. Now as to your Neptune Ranch. Well now, on August 10, 1902 Butch wrote to Maud Davis' mother at Ashley, Utah. Butch was writing from the Cholila Ranch. Ms Meadows, printed the letter on pages xi-xii. On xii Butch writes "It is 16 hundred miles to Buenos Aries...." Tell me, Mr. Buck, was Butch wearing a wet suit when he wrote? Snorkel? Of course Nahuel Huapi is 200 miles nearer Buenos Aires than the Cholila Ranch, and we now begin to approximate Moore's 1200 miles!

Kid Lutefisk | 6:46 p.m. May 5, 2009

Au Contraire, ,mon ami. You must read more carefully and quote more accurately. Siringo is quite specific that he got the story of Brogart/Gatlin/McCoy murdering the boy from Len Woodruff, not the information regarding the dentist, the tough gang of outlaws and the ranch operations 1200 miles from BA. As to Cowboy Detective you know full well you have conjoined two separate letters and one statement by Siringo into a single "letter".

1) Letter from Hall to Dentist.
2.) Siringo statement of location.
3.)Moore letter to Hall/Nichols.

Come, come, Mr. Buck, your're much better than this tawdry performance. Let us have your best game!

Kid Lutefisk | 6:18 a.m. May 6, 2009

Mr. Buck. I'm not satisfied with your characterization of Butch and Harry, having read newspaper accounts of free land in Patagonia, landing haphazzardly in Cholila with the comely Ethel Place in tow. Together we have established quite clearly that the circumstance of the three amigos parallels, exactly, the Tom Nichols/Hall - Newberry Brothers operations with American outlaws for the preceeding 14 years. Why then, in view of the 1909 Dodge letter joining Butch to Hall/Nichols, should we suppose that Butch and Harry chose Cholila independently of the Nichols-Newberry programed development of cattle ranching enterprise? No, your characterization is not credible.

It is also not credible that Butch and Harry were "chased out" of Patagonia. To the contary, Dimaio did not arrive in BA until March 16, 1903. After Dimaio left BA, it was with the understanding that Newberry would take up the chase following the 1903 Patagonian winter. That, of course, did not happen. Indeed, despite continued Pinkerton efforts to gin up Agentine support for an invasion of Cholila, no such capture effort was forth comming. Nor should it have been expected with vice-counsul George Newberry providing cover for the outlaws in the Argentine capital.

Kid Lutefisk | 6:41 a.m. May 6, 2009

In Butch's August 10, 1902 letter to Mrs. Davis he states that, while "It is 16 hundred miles to BA" it is only 150 miles to the Chilean Coast. DUBAS, page xii. To take advantage of the drastically shortened route it is necessary to develop the Cochabamba trail which would lead to the packing plant in the Chilean city of the same name. In Butch's 1907 letter to the Boys at Concordia, Butch once again focuses on the packing plant: "It is 350 miles from here to Cochabamba and a hell of a road." DUBAS, p. 99.

The three Amigos left Cholila, never once molested by law enforcement, on May 1, 1905. DUBAS, p.78. At the time the Cochabamba trail had opened and the packing plant was in full operation, to the very great benefit of Newberry-Nichols cattle operations as well as the rest of Patagonia. Butch and Harry sold their squatter's rights to a Chilean outfit, and on June 29, 1905, Harry and Ethel hopped a freighter to, ostensibly, California. DUBAS, p.79.

Daniel Buck | 7:24 a.m. May 6, 2009

Kid L.,

In the mid/late-1880s, western Chubut was barely populated. If the Siringo anecdote has any basis at all, it's in reference to the Pampas, the region to the immediate west and south of BsAs. But as I mentioned earlier, there is nothing in the Argentine literature about a 100-member Yankee bandit gang in the 1880s (or ever). There were large, marauding Chilean gangs in the Andean foothills of northern Patagonia, but that was years later.

Many Americans came to Argentina in the late 1800s/early 1900s, including Texans. The country was an immigrant magnet. Not everyone, though, has to be linked to Cassidy. Conspiracies and complots based on six-degrees-of-separation are easy to construct, but not very credible.

As for your other points, read Gavirati (2007). For example, the Argentine police went after BC&SK following the February 1905 Rio Gallegos holdup (which the duo probably did not commit). BC&SK&EP fled to Chile. Normally, thats called being chased out.

Dan

Horse Creek Cowboy | 11:47 a.m. May 6, 2009

To add more confusion relating to the Trio's entry into Patagonia, His late Majesty, Edward VII, did not determine whether Cholila was in Chile or Argentina until November 1902.

Jakey2 | 12:34 p.m. May 6, 2009

I'm probably going to regret joining in but I have a comment and a few questions for Dan Buck.

I sure hope you and Kid L keeping going. I've learned more about the Outlaws in an hour than I learned in ten years reading books about them. Is there any chance the two of you would stage a cage match? I'll by a ticket.

I checked page 78 in your wife book and like Kid L says they left Argentina on May 1. Are you saying the posse was chasing them to Chile?

If there weren't many people in Argentina in 1887, wouldn't that be a good place for outlaws to hide? Who would know they were there.

Are you saying Charlie Seringus and Patterson made everthing up?

Just asking. Thanks for a good show.

GORDON | 12:40 p.m. May 6, 2009

THERE IS A DNA FROM BILL LONG----THERE IS HARVEYS DNA-----I AND ANOTHER SUNDANCE RELATIVE HAVE GIVEN OUR DNA---WHY IS THIS ALL TAKING SO LONG?

Ancient Mariner | 12:43 p.m. May 6, 2009

I'm confused. If the DNA from the second time Long was dug up wasn't a match, which match are we waiting for? When did the negative match happen? Why did you dig Long up a third time?

Driftwood | 10:03 a.m. May 7, 2009

Mr. Buck discredits or ignores certain parts of Siringo and the Pinkerton Files that weakens what he has written or believes. He contends every thing in the Gavirati book trumps Siringo and the Pinkerton files. The Gavirati book is only published in Spanish and cannot be substantiated by other American author besides Mr. Buck because he is the only one that can read Spanish. When a conflict in his book is pointed out to him his respoce is read Gaviratis book. As far as he is concerned this ends the argument and he won the argument. He does not have to address the conflict in his book. Very convenient for Mr. Buck.
Mr. Buck wrote the forward for Gavirati.

To: Eyepatch (Me, Myself and I) | 10:44 a.m. May 7, 2009

Its called a human interest story. Besides journalism is dead! What they put out for us to read half of it is ficticious or propoganda to get us to believe what they want us to.

Me, Myself and I | 11:08 a.m. May 7, 2009

The article definitely says the altercation over the supposed water theft happened in 1901. Maybe Bob does have dyslexia.

To: Granny T (Me, Myself and I) | 11:12 a.m. May 7, 2009

It is well noted and documented that Butch and the Wild Bunch were more like Robin Hoods than Boyz In The Hood. They may have been outlaws but they also shared their spoils with many in need.

Ghosttown Bob | 11:40 a.m. May 7, 2009

The Deseret News printed Edition for Feb 16, 2009 Column 1, page B8, fourth paragraph down says: "Oct 24, 1910." Look it up in the Library, it's there for all to see.

The Deseret News Online editors made the correction for the online article to read "Oct 24, 1901" on Feb 18th with no mention of their revision.

No dyslexia here.

Ghosttown Bob | 12:14 p.m. May 7, 2009

Kid Lutefisk: Concerning the exhumations of Bill Long. This topic has been discussed several times on this board and at the KSL site. Your assessment of the exhumations seems to be pretty accurate. The "Family" has been insistent that exhumation #2 (Nov 15, 2007) was just for the purpose of putting Long's bones back, that his body wasn't disturbed, and that no tests were done at that time. Of course they wouldn't admit that Dr. McCullough took measurements and made a forensic examination of the remains at the time, or that his bones were removed and placed in a vault upon re-burial.

My sources have also told me that the "Families" position was that "not enough DNA" was found to make a valid comparison which is what led to a "no-match" to the Long descendant. They originally had wanted to do a Y-Chromosome comparison, but switched in early 2008 to hunting for maternal descendants for Mt-DNA testing.

This last exhumation, I understand was again for Y-Chromosome testing. Perhaps Gorden can enlighten further about what he was told when he was recruited for testing.

Disintrested Observer | 12:22 p.m. May 7, 2009

". . .besides Mr. Buck because he is the only one that can read Spanish."

I think several million people in Latin & South America, as well as the Philippines and Spain may disagree with you.

Disintrested Observer | 12:32 p.m. May 7, 2009

On the other hand, Mr. Buck, when might the rest of us that don't read Spanish be able to read the above mentioned book? Might you not be able to persuade Mr. Gavirati to provide an English translation of at least parts of it?

Wonder why | 2:13 p.m. May 7, 2009

Why today do we see those, to avoid being held responsible for what they say or do, or not being able to verify/prove their own theories, (includes politicians) turn to running the other down. It has become a habit for far too many. If one is right, what does the opinion of one who does not agree matter? If wrong, seems like it would be best to not ask at all.

WW

Kid Lutefisk | 2:37 p.m. May 7, 2009

Ghosttown Bob:

(1) I hope you weren't offended by the Hollywoods thinking you and I were the same person. I'm a dead ringer for Cary Grant in his prime. You?

(2) Thank you for your clarifications. You appear to know what you're talking about.

(3) In defense of Jerry Nickle I would like to say that I personally know the man to be possessed of a character beyond reproach. Along that line, I believe it to be entirely unfair of all of us to demand that Jerry reveal the crux of his position -- DNA testing match/no match on this blog, for free. The man not only has a book forthcomming, and a movie, but he has spent a considerable amount of money developing both of these properties to my benefit, yours, and every other American citizen interested in our history. The same is true for our host, Deseret News. We would not be able to discuss this topic but for their investment of time and money in hosting this site. When they printed a correction on the 1901/1910 error we ought to compliment them, not denigrate them. Thank you Jerry, thank you Deseret News.

Kid Lutefisk | 2:59 p.m. May 7, 2009

(Continued)

4.) Jerry and his group acted with the highest moral and ethical standards in the second exhumation. We must all remember that exhumation #2 was conducted solely for the purpose of re-internment of Long's skull and femur, making the remains whole in the grave. That was a kindness to the family and Jerry footed the bill out of his own pocket. Imagine if your loved one was not complete in his/her final resting place. Wouldn't you want the remains whole in the grave? I would.

5.) Dr McCullough acted responsibly and with the highest professional standards at exhumation #2. He had only a brief time at the grave to observe the remains. Because the primary purpose of the exhumation was to make the remains whole, not to conduct a complete forensic examination, Dr McCullough labeled his report "Preliminary" and quite plainly stated the circumstances.

6.) The third exhumation resulted from the discovery that the DNA sample obtained at Exhumation #1 could not possibly be vetted due to the Chain of Custody mandate for any responsible procedure designed to compare DNA between two donors. The purpose of the exercise is to locate family members.

Kid Lutefisk | 3:10 p.m. May 7, 2009

7.) The fact that DNA test results are not released in advance of publication of Jerry's book and the relase of his film, is in no way properly construed as evidence that there is a match or no match of the DNA. I expect that if you want to know the result, you'll have to buy the book, watch the movie, or read Deseret News. I intend to do all three.

8.) If you read this blog you benefit from a lively discussion of facts with a hard-edge, pointed discussion of annotated evidence, and a no-nonsense look at comlicated evidence by quality professionals. What else do you want? Buy a book, watch a film, buy a newspaper. We call that education, jouralism, and information.

Kid Lutefisk | 4:17 p.m. May 7, 2009

(Continued) 9.) As you read this blog pay strict attention to standards and ethics. Hold everyone to the highest standards of both. If you do you will find that Deseret News is passionately devoted to the exercise of our collective First Amendment Rights. Jerry Nickle is passionately devoted to professional standards regarding citation to specific documents. Dan Buck? No. If you own a copy of DUBAS, and you ought to, what you will notice is that Ms Meadows does not use a single Chapter Note, Foot Note, or End Note. Not one, and that is a fact.
Kid Nickle, on the other hand, is the most fastidious fellow I know about citations. I expect his book will have enough citations to keep all of us busy through, at minimum, the next decade. With Jerry, you will know where to find the piece of evidence he cites as authority. You may agree or disagree with him, but there will be no question about where the man got the evidence he is arguing.
Get a copy of Deseret News. Pick a story. Turn on a TV or read another newspaper. What you will find is that your story is supported.

Anonymous | 6:40 p.m. May 7, 2009

"Jerry Nickle is passionately devoted to professional standards regarding citation to specific documents. Dan Buck? No. If you own a copy of DUBAS, and you ought to, what you will notice is that Ms Meadows does not use a single Chapter Note, Foot Note, or End Note. Not one, and that is a fact."

why is this so, Mr. Buck, or Ms. Buck?

Kid Lutefisk | 6:22 a.m. May 8, 2009

Anonymous:

Right on sister! Your question is fair, proper, valid, ethical, and, if Mr Buck gives you the courtesy of the reply you deserve we all will benefit.

Ghosttown Bob | 9:35 a.m. May 8, 2009

Anonymous: Did you ever really read "Digging Up Butch and Sundance?" It is not written as an historical work. It was written by Anne Meadows as a travel book across South America, with a Butch and Sundance theme. It tells the story of where they went and what they found. Not as a book on history. If you have ever read any of Buck's history articles, they are very well annotated and referenced as they should be.

. . . but I think you already knew this. You just wanted to show off your ignorance.

Ghosttown Bob | 9:57 a.m. May 8, 2009

Kid Lutefisk: Actually I'm not offended, though I think that Gaylen thinks I am Harold Iverson, not you, and Gaylen, I am not saying whether I am, or I am not. I'll keep you guessing for a while longer. I do however look like Harrison Ford, but with a much larger stomach.

As for Jerry, and bunch. I have never doubted their sincerity, or their documentation, or their passion for the subject. Jerry is a great individual and I am sure he is making every effort to document what he has.

What I have doubted are their conclusions linking William Henry Long to Harry Longabaugh. For the most part, they have either mis-interpreted their sources, or relied too much on hearsay/rumor from past/present family members, while doubting the veracity of the valid research of others. Calling everything you do not agree with as "fake" is a poor way of proving your point.

Yes, I doubt that Jerry will reveal the results of the DNA tests on this board, even though he has hinted that he would. Any smart person would wait for the book and documentary.

Dora du Fran | 12:41 p.m. May 8, 2009

On page 123 of Donna Ernst's new book, The Sundance Kid, Ms Ernst claims that the Fort Worth Five photograph, taken November 21, 1900, was discovered in the window of theSwartz photography studio by Fred J. Dodge, a Wells, Fargo detective. Ms Ernst claims that Dodge made 50 prints of the photo and then, from his office at 817 Main Street in Fort Worth, mailed a copy to the Pinkertons, who in turn sent one to George Nixon in Winnemucca. As authority Ms Ernst, at end note 6 on page 215, cites "wanted" poster from the Malta train robbery, reprinted on page 119 of her book. On page 119 Ms Ernst reproduces Reward Circular No. 3 for the Winnemucca Bank Robbery, issued November 14, 1904, which has absolutely nothing to do with the Fort Worth Five Photo or the Malta train robbery except that Malta is listed as one of Longabaugh's alleged offenses. It gets much worse.

The Wells Fargo Agent at 817 Main Street in 1900 was not Fred J. Dodge, but rather, Nicholas J. McGinnis. (Selcer, Hell's Half Acre, page 262)

CONTINUED......

Dora du Fran | 12:53 p.m. May 8, 2009

In 1900 Fred J. Dodge and his family lived in San Antonio, not Fort Worth. (Patterson, Butch Cassidy, Note 22, Page 311)The Fred J. Dodge letter of March 6, 1909 to McParland, previously discussed on this blog opens with the following sentence: "I would thank you to furnish me a history of Butch Cassidy also a photo if you have one." If Dodge had fifty prints of the photo in 1900, 49 after Ms Ernst claims he mailed one to the Pinkertons, why would he write to the Pinkertons 9 years later and ask for a photo of Butch? Why did Ms Ernst fabricate a citation? Why didn't Mr Buck bring the Dodge letter forth years ago?

GORDON | 10:13 a.m. May 9, 2009

I was told my DNA was to help prove or disprove that Bill Long was the Sundance Kid---since his great grandfather Conrad was my great-great-great grandfather there would be a 1/16th match----I stated my DNA was to be used in the public domain----I do not understand why everyone is playing cat and mouse?

jimlyn | 1:23 p.m. May 9, 2009

Gordon, I am not an expert in dna, but you should be a one to one match with Conrad. If Mr Long is SK then he too should be a one to one match. Y chromosome is very mutant resistant. I have had several matches with my dna and all are a one to one match going back at least two hundred years. And the cat and mouse is politics and money. But I don't blame Mr Nicols for taking the time to do it right.

A friend of JN | 3:32 p.m. May 9, 2009

Gordon
Jerry Nickle tells me, he did not ask you to furnish a DNA sample? If Jerry Nickle did not then who did?

GTB
Jerry Nickle told me he knows exactly who you are and you are not Kid Lutefish.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.

7 photos

Archive photo

The Wild Bunch outlaws include the Sundance Kid, left front, and Butch Cassidy, right front. Similarities between William Henry Long and Sundance Kid have been noted.

Gallery (7 photos)