I don't know if anyone saw this show or not. It was interesting that they quoted Garrett's book about not knowing where the gun came from that he used to escape jail. I would doubt that he could actually get the door open where the guns were kept. And what happened to this gun? Then later on in the program it says Garett killed Billy and Billy was unarmed, so there they don't go by the Garrett book. I guess every tv show just goes by what they think it the most correct.
I think TV documentaries like to stir up debates because the average viewing public is more interested in "mystery" and "conspiracy." It seems to be that way by some of the emails I get. History buffs want answers, why the average person prefers drama. I didn't see the show myself, but the topic has been a never ending debate. It's a mystery on where and how Billy got a hold of a gun when he escaped from the courthouse and whether or not he was armed when Garrett killed him. Garrett's explanation on how he killed Billy is rocky, but I believe it's because he ambushed Billy and made up the story how Billy just "happened" to walk in on him. Garrett's book is based on myth and to make him look like a hero for gunning down a killer, so when it comes to the "facts" it's rather undependable.
__________________
~ Marcelle Brothers, Webmaster of About Billy the Kid & Forum Administrator ~
the mystery to me is whoever found the deputy would sure know if he still had his gun or not. In fact, it would seem several people would know and that would solve that right away.
Pat Garrett said Bell had a gun in his holster, but Billy could've easily put one there so it wouldn't look like he shot Bell unarm. In the Code of the West nothing is lower than shooting an unarm man, especially one that was running away.
-- Edited by Webmaster at 16:48, 2004-08-16
__________________
~ Marcelle Brothers, Webmaster of About Billy the Kid & Forum Administrator ~